or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Court grants Samsung request to expedite Galaxy Nexus injunction appeal
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Court grants Samsung request to expedite Galaxy Nexus injunction appeal - Page 2

post #41 of 120
I have several Apple products including an iPad and a Galaxy Nexus. All are great devices. The IOS and Android are completely different. Anyone who says they are the same is an idiot.

I had to get the Galaxy because I needed 4g speed and I like the larger screen. It is easier for my old eyes to read. While the retina display is great, it is still too small for me. I also need the ability to move files between my phone and computers via USB for my work.

I also have to use Verizon as It is the only carrier that covers all of my sales territory. I originally got a droid and got used to it. The Nexus is an excellent phone I am sure that the iPhones is as well.

I hope Apple does not get these products banned. I do not think that the software patents are ultimately enforceable in these cases and are quite weak. A ban would be an improper remedy in my opinion. Not a lawyer, just applying a little common sense....

I don't really blame Apple for trying this crap, but I do blame the broken patent system and would like to see an end to these frivolous patent wars.....
post #42 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodGrief View Post

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

My question was a sincere one.

 

Then you framed it wrong. Very, very wrong.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I really did wish to know what he perceived as identical. He may have logical and real examples, or perhaps he just used the wrong term and meant similar, or maybe he's misunderstood something he read somewhere. In any case there's no need to poke fun or intimidate him. Give him a chance to explain his view.

 
 
 
Read the post again (all of you):

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2stepbay View Post

The problem is you are supporting or defending the sale of stolen property.

 

Imagine you created an innovative, ground breaking product. A year or so later your next door neighbor showed off an identical version of your product, touting their intellectual creativity and ingenuity. How would that work for you?

 

There are two separate statements there. 1) That buying a device that incorporates stolen [intellectual] property is supporting the theft (which it is). 2) Posing the hypothetical "what if ... how would you feel" question to illustrate the desire someone might have to protect the intellectual property they believed to be rightfully theirs.

 

If 2stepbay wants to chime in and state they were implying that the Galaxy Nexus is identical to an iPhone, or Android is identical to iOS, the so be it. If that's the case then I'm completely off base here, and I admit it. Until they do however, you've got nothing other than taking a single word out of context and drawing a conclusion that doesn't necessarily follow.

 

Perhaps if your comprehension fails and you would like to know what someone means, then you could ask them instead of assuming a meaning on their behalf and challenging them to defend it.

Ummm. ... Isn't that pretty much the same thing I said in my post you're quoting? Let him explain what he meant before jumping in with taunts? Better yet don't use taunts at all.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #43 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

Samsung only sold 32 million cell phones in 2011Q4.
How many of these will even be able to run Android 4.1?
post #44 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

How many of these will even be able to run Android 4.1?

Wrong question.

How many will be able to run Android 4.1 AND will have 4.1 available from their carrier?

If history is any guide, the answer is very, very small. Upgrades in Android-ville are few and far between.
"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 #45 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Ummm. ... Isn't that pretty much the same thing I said in my post you're quoting? Let him explain what he meant before jumping in with taunts? Better yet don't use taunts at all.

 

Great to be popular around here. ;)  Of course, the Nexus is not "identical" (poor word choice), but its genesis comes purportedly (that ought to satisfy you legal beagles) from intellectual property created by Apple. While the Courts will decide where this ultimately goes, the initial stay order seemingly indicates sufficient evidence exists showing Samsung with their hands deeply in someone else's cookie jar.

 

In a broader sense, Google, Samsung, HTC etc. failure to acknowledge and fairly compensate the source of "their creative inspiration", underscores a sick mentality, driven by a quest to earn money regardless of the consequences. Yet, no matter how you color the picture, it's still wrong to steal other people's intellectual property, regardless of the rationale. Further, consumers buying products born out of this perverse mind-set literally give tacit approval and encouragement to this type of sick corporate behavior. I agree the patent system needs to be revamped. However, beyond the legal perspective and framework, there lies an inherent, base understanding within everyone of right and wrong. Sadly, this line is too often blurred to justify one's actions, especially in the world of commerce and banking.

post #46 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2stepbay View Post

So you have absolutely no qualms about purchasing stolen property. Dude, you need a reality checkup. BTW...karma...directly or indirectly triggered is always a bitch.

 

Considering the Galaxy Nexus injunction was primarily being considered because it was infringing on 'Universal Search', I proudly say 'steal' away. The fact that a patent was even issued for this is laughable, and the only good I can see coming out of it is maybe some changes will start to take place at the USPTO.
 

post #47 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

Considering the Galaxy Nexus injunction was primarily being considered because it was infringing on 'Universal Search', I proudly say 'steal' away. The fact that a patent was even issued for this is laughable, and the only good I can see coming out of it is maybe some changes will start to take place at the USPTO.
 

 

Then I guess you think Google should not have exclusive rights to the PageRank patent (a software patent on search, BTW)? Without this patent being granted, Google would not even exist today. And without this patent other search engines (like Bing or Yahoo) would be able to match Google's superior results, and take away their advantage in the market.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #48 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

Then I guess you think Google should not have exclusive rights to the PageRank patent (a software patent on search, BTW)? Without this patent being granted, Google would not even exist today. And without this patent other search engines (like Bing or Yahoo) would be able to match Google's superior results, and take away their advantage in the market.

 

The PageRank patent is held by Stanford university, and is FAR from being as generic as Apple's 'Universal Search' patent. If the PageRank patent was as equally generic with something along the lines of 'an algorithm for prioritizing hyperlinks', then my answer would also be YES, this should not be a valid patent. However, even in it's simple form, following are some of the equations defined in the patent:

 

patents?id=cJUIAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA8&img=1&zoom=4&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3RdRc8dBqAFfikl9VMzRzAuNIDhg&ci=638%2C215%2C175%2C65&edge=0patents?id=cJUIAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA7&img=1&zoom=4&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U1R48Vo3bmbCQYLCI4xgEiKKsgnbQ&ci=599%2C444%2C239%2C61&edge=0patents?id=cJUIAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA8&img=1&zoom=4&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3RdRc8dBqAFfikl9VMzRzAuNIDhg&ci=238%2C784%2C128%2C45&edge=0

 

If you would like to try to make the case that this is as generic as Apple's Universal Search Patent with it's "predetermined heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area, and the search areas include storage media accessible by the apparatus",  then be my guest. I would say you definitely have your work cut out for you!

post #49 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lerxt View Post

I would bet anything that samsung have employed a legion of people to post on these forums to write pro Samsung posts.

 

Yes, because we all know that Apple NEVER does that sort of thing. Every corporation on the planet does it. Facebook does it. Amazon actually offers a service to hire people in third world countries to write reviews for products. You can even pay to have fake reviews posted on all the various app stores.

 

Let's stay somewhat non-partisan here, shall we?

post #50 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2stepbay View Post

 

Great to be popular around here. ;)  Of course, the Nexus is not "identical" (poor word choice), but its genesis comes purportedly (that ought to satisfy you legal beagles) from intellectual property created by Apple. While the Courts will decide where this ultimately goes, the initial stay order seemingly indicates sufficient evidence exists showing Samsung with their hands deeply in someone else's cookie jar.

 

In a broader sense, Google, Samsung, HTC etc. failure to acknowledge and fairly compensate the source of "their creative inspiration", underscores a sick mentality, driven by a quest to earn money regardless of the consequences. Yet, no matter how you color the picture, it's still wrong to steal other people's intellectual property, regardless of the rationale. Further, consumers buying products born out of this perverse mind-set literally give tacit approval and encouragement to this type of sick corporate behavior. I agree the patent system needs to be revamped. However, beyond the legal perspective and framework, there lies an inherent, base understanding within everyone of right and wrong. Sadly, this line is too often blurred to justify one's actions, especially in the world of commerce and banking.

 

Claiming that Google, Samsung, HTC, et al, have absolutely, beyond the shadow of a doubt, got their inspiration solely from Apple is pretty baseless. Why don't we analyze the iPhone and see what was copied from Microsoft (direct rips of the home screen, copy and paste, dialer, SLIDE TO UNLOCK (Yes, Windows CE had this in 2005; 2 full years before Apple "patented" it)), Motorola, HTC, and Palm. Those corporations KNEW beyond the shadow of a doubt that Apple had taken influences from all of their mobile, competing products at the time and used them in the iPhone. How about Facetime that Apple "claimed" to have innovated? Yes, Motorola had done it a good 5 years before in Australia. These companies only started going to war after Apple started wielding it's list of patents around and threatening everyone else when Apple is clearly as guilty as the rest of them.

 

My point here is that if you are going to "claim" that Google, Samsung, HTC, etc are failing to acknowledge that they used Apple as a "source of their creative inspiration", make sure that you include Apple in that list as both a consumer of said inspirations and also a provider. They [Apple] are FAR from innocent when it comes to stealing ideas from other companies.

post #51 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2stepbay View Post

So you have absolutely no qualms about purchasing stolen property. Dude, you need a reality checkup. BTW...karma...directly or indirectly triggered is always a bitch.

 

Depends on what your definition of "stolen" is... Using a Mac? Yup, it's stolen. It is very well documented that Steve Jobs STOLE the idea for the first versions of the Mac OS when he was on a tour of a Xerox facility. He also made it very well known that IBM's OS-X warp was the basis for numerous technologies STILL used today in Macs. He didn't ask IBM to use these technologies. He just saw them, reverse engineered and then implemented them. Apple didn't pay IBM a single dime in royalties until 2001 when IBM finally leveraged their patents in open court.

post #52 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by corerooted View Post

Depends on what your definition of "stolen" is... Using a Mac? Yup, it's stolen. It is very well documented that Steve Jobs STOLE the idea for the first versions of the Mac OS when he was on a tour of a Xerox facility. He also made it very well known that IBM's OS-X warp was the basis for numerous technologies STILL used today in Macs. He didn't ask IBM to use these technologies. He just saw them, reverse engineered and then implemented them. Apple didn't pay IBM a single dime in royalties until 2001 when IBM finally leveraged their patents in open court.

Let me be the first to welcome to our universe.

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

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

Reply

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

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

Reply
post #53 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Which will make you one of the 7 people on the planet who have been able to upgrade to the latest version of Android.

My Galaxy Nexus updated to 4.1.1 yesterday too, on the first day of the official release, along with probably a few millions of others... I am in France btw.

post #54 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by corerooted View Post

Yes, because we all know that Apple NEVER does that sort of thing. Every corporation on the planet does it. Facebook does it. Amazon actually offers a service to hire people in third world countries to write reviews for products. You can even pay to have fake reviews posted on all the various app stores.

Number one, "Because 'everyone' does it, no one should be punished for it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by core rooted View Post

Claiming that Google, Samsung, HTC, et al, have absolutely, beyond the shadow of a doubt, got their inspiration solely from Apple is pretty baseless.

Number two: "Not only does everyone else not do it, here's a list of things that Apple did to steal from everyone else."
Quote:
Originally Posted by corerooted View Post

Using a Mac? Yup, it's stolen. It is very well documented that Steve Jobs STOLE the idea for the first versions of the Mac OS when he was on a tour of a Xerox facility.

Number three: And the dumbest lie anyone could ever say about Apple.

That's a trifecta right there. Baseball has some nice rules about threes, I think, but maybe that's me.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #55 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

My Galaxy Nexus updated to 4.1.1 yesterday too, on the first day of the official release, along with probably a few millions of others... I am in France btw.

I guess that makes you and I 2 out of the 7.

 

Pretty awesome that 28% of the Galaxy Nexus users are in this thread.

Retina Macbook Pro - 2.6ghz

Galaxy Nexus - Jelly Bean!

Reply

Retina Macbook Pro - 2.6ghz

Galaxy Nexus - Jelly Bean!

Reply
post #56 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


show me where Android 4.0 is identical to iOS...
I'll be waiting.

 

Unified search, hence the banning which is currently stayed.

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 #57 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by corerooted View Post

 SLIDE TO UNLOCK (Yes, Windows CE had this in 2005; 2 full years before Apple "patented" it)),

 

They had push a button, poke with a stick to unlock, quit with the bullshit.

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 #58 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Wrong question.
How many will be able to run Android 4.1 AND will have 4.1 available from their carrier?
If history is any guide, the answer is very, very small. Upgrades in Android-ville are few and far between.

 

I will, on my Galaxy Nexus.

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 #59 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

The PageRank patent is held by Stanford university, and is FAR from being as generic as Apple's 'Universal Search' patent. If the PageRank patent was as equally generic with something along the lines of 'an algorithm for prioritizing hyperlinks', then my answer would also be YES, this should not be a valid patent. However, even in it's simple form, following are some of the equations defined in the patent:

 

patents?id=cJUIAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA8&img=1&zoom=4&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3RdRc8dBqAFfikl9VMzRzAuNIDhg&ci=638%2C215%2C175%2C65&edge=0patents?id=cJUIAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA7&img=1&zoom=4&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U1R48Vo3bmbCQYLCI4xgEiKKsgnbQ&ci=599%2C444%2C239%2C61&edge=0patents?id=cJUIAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA8&img=1&zoom=4&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3RdRc8dBqAFfikl9VMzRzAuNIDhg&ci=238%2C784%2C128%2C45&edge=0

 

If you would like to try to make the case that this is as generic as Apple's Universal Search Patent with it's "predetermined heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area, and the search areas include storage media accessible by the apparatus",  then be my guest. I would say you definitely have your work cut out for you!

 

Why don't you show how Google's heuristic algorithms are any more worthy than Apple's heuristic algorithms, given that they perform similar functions.

 

Be our guest.

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 #60 of 120

The Galaxy Nexus is not exactly "identical" to the iPhone, but it is very close.

 

Take a step back 5 years ago. Before Apple invented the iPhone there was nothing like it. All other phones were alike in that they were just feature phones except maybe the BB with its push email function.

 

Apple created a whole new type of phone. A phone with a touch screen, icons and apps. Now tell me before that did Samsung have anything even remotely close to that? The answer is a definitive NO!

 

So unless you are living on another planet, in another galaxy, no pun intended, the Nexus is a total copy. No it is not "identical" but I think you get my point unless you are totally brain dead. It is the entire phone, the idea for the phone type, that is a copy. Forget about a few software details. Look at the entire forest instead of a single tree.

 

If you are honest with yourself, and not just an Android fan boy, you will agree.


Edited by tgolly - 7/15/12 at 5:18pm
post #61 of 120

Really! 

 

Lets take a look at number 4.

 

4. An infringement of 1 software patent cannot lead to the ban of a product, it needs to be multiple. (frand patents should not carry a ban at all, and frand payments should be outlined by the state not the Frand patent holder I'm looking at you samdung and Moto.)

 

So everyone gets to "steal" Apple's patented technology one time. Just don't do it more than once. Wow!

 

How about this. How about I come to your house and use your car once. And then everyone else can also use it once. Of course a court can make us pay you for its use but you can not stop us from using it. How would you like that?

 

A court can force you to let someone else use your property even if you object to said use. You will be compensated but you must allow it.

 

Sounds like sanctioned stealing to me.

 

Perhaps now you might want to consider your opinion.

post #62 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

My Galaxy Nexus updated to 4.1.1 yesterday too, on the first day of the official release, along with probably a few millions of others... I am in France btw.

Let's say that you're right and a few million Nexus users update to 4.1.1. Given that Google claims hundreds of millions of users per day, it's still a tiny percentage.

Again, history tells us that only a very small number of Android users are ever able to upgrade.
"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 #63 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Let's say that you're right and a few million Nexus users update to 4.1.1. Given that Google claims hundreds of millions of users per day, it's still a tiny percentage.
Again, history tells us that only a very small number of Android users are ever able to upgrade.

Unfortunate but you're probably right, tho I suspect most users don't have a clue what version they run anyway and no idea about an update to their OS.

http://www.androidcentral.com/will-my-phone-or-tablet-get-jelly-bean-and-when

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #64 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

They had push a button, poke with a stick to unlock, quit with the bullshit.

 

LMAO! Wow... I love the uninformed... Yeah, ever heard of the Neonode? No, probably not... However, do a quick search on the N1m then come back and and say that it wasn't slide to unlock.

post #65 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by corerooted View Post

 

LMAO! Wow... I love the uninformed... Yeah, ever heard of the Neonode? No, probably not... However, do a quick search on the N1m then come back and and say that it wasn't slide to unlock.

You could say the same thing in a more respectful manner and perhaps get more courteous replies. Mocking Apple users at an Apple enthusiast site doesn't ever turn out well.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Number one, "Because 'everyone' does it, no one should be punished for it."
Number two: "Not only does everyone else not do it, here's a list of things that Apple did to steal from everyone else."
Number three: And the dumbest lie anyone could ever say about Apple.
That's a trifecta right there. Baseball has some nice rules about threes, I think, but maybe that's me.

 

#1: I'm not saying no one should be punished for it. Absolutely companies should be. However, to say one company is in the right when they themselves have committed the same transgressions would be wrong as well.

 

#2: Really? Show me a company (on the order of magnitude of the huge companies in this discussion here) that has not taken an idea from some other company in the past 25-30 years. It's usually your smaller companies that are still innovating without copying someone's work. Android has "innovated" upon Palm, Windows and iOS technologies. Windows Phone has "innovated" upon multiple things from Android, Palm, and iOS. Palm even took ideas from the Newton years ago and "innovated" with them.

 

#3: http://www.zurb.com/article/801/steve-jobs-and-xerox-the-truth-about-inno: I'm sorry, using what someone else has invented and improving upon it, then calling it "innovation", is still stealing someone else's idea and that is exactly what he did. It didn't matter if Xerox was or was not marketing the computer the way that Jobs thought it should have been. Xerox was still selling a product (granted at the wrong target audience). Plain and simple, he took someone's idea as a base,expanded upon it, called it "innovation" and the rest is history. He still took those ideas from Xerox. It was called "innovation" because he "changed" certain aspects of it and improved upon it. However, these were NOT his ideas originally. That is true innovation. Taking what you have in your own head and making it a reality. Not looking at some interface and saying "yeah, let's move this here, add this, change this color here, and then add a bar across the top!"

 

If Apple is going to sit there and attack others for "innovating", then Apple should put themselves into the same shoes as the others. They haven't. They have pilfered technology and ideas (like "everyone" else has) and then turned around and claimed they are "innovating". Well, if that is the case, then everyone else should be getting a free pass also on this "innovation" bandwagon.

post #67 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Let's say that you're right and a few million Nexus users update to 4.1.1. Given that Google claims hundreds of millions of users per day, it's still a tiny percentage.
Again, history tells us that only a very small number of Android users are ever able to upgrade.

I can only think of a single "high end" Android phone that hasn't received a major update. And naturally that was an LG phone which only accounts for a very small percentage of Android phones now.

 

An upgrade lifecycle is 18 months. Every Android phone will receive at least 1 major update. My Samsung Captivate received an update even 2 years after it came out. And that 2 year old captivate still runs every app in the app store. That's why I don't see why fragmentation is a problem. I can only think of a few apps that require at least Gingerbread to run. And the only one I can think of that requires ICS would be Google Chrome.

 

Again. There is no issue. The device you buy will be supported for the lifetime of your contract (18months) and then you will have a new device with a new OS with a new upgrade lifecycle.

 

And if you truly cared THAT much about getting AOSP builds on day 1, then you already know about the Nexus.

 

Also, OEMs don't have to rebuild their skins for Android for Jelly Bean. It's a minor update. Unlike going from Gingerbread to ICS. This transition will be a lot easier for them.

Retina Macbook Pro - 2.6ghz

Galaxy Nexus - Jelly Bean!

Reply

Retina Macbook Pro - 2.6ghz

Galaxy Nexus - Jelly Bean!

Reply
post #68 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by corerooted View Post

LMAO! Wow... I love the uninformed... Yeah, ever heard of the Neonode? No, probably not... However, do a quick search on the N1m then come back and and say that it wasn't slide to unlock.

I am aware of that obscure phone, now it was nothing like Apple's patented method once you get into the specifics of the patent, pay particular attention to the use of icon's to indicate the specific path one's finger should take to perform the action, the method Android copied.

Maybe Android should leave the screen black before performing the unlock as was the case with this supposed prior art.
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 #69 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Why don't you show how Google's heuristic algorithms are any more worthy than Apple's heuristic algorithms, given that they perform similar functions.

 

Be our guest.

 

Huh? Who even brought up a heuristic algorithm from Google? Last comment I made was referring to a very specific algorithm patented by Standford University compared to the very vague and general 'Universal Search' patent granted to Apple. The patent granted to Apple doesn't even identify any unique algorithm, but just describes a general ability to search for different types of assets on a device. I hardly consider the idea of searching for items and data on a device to be a "nonobvious" as required for being granted a patent.

post #70 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaroonMushroom View Post

I can only think of a single "high end" Android phone that hasn't received a major update. And naturally that was an LG phone which only accounts for a very small percentage of Android phones now.

If that's true, then it simply establishes that most Android phones are low end.

It has been well established that Android 2.2 and 2.3 are the predominant OSs and that very, very few Android phones ever see an update.

Heck, they're still selling Android 2.2 phones today - several years after that OS was released.
"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 #71 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

I am aware of that obscure phone, now it was nothing like Apple's patented method once you get into the specifics of the patent, pay particular attention to the use of icon's to indicate the specific path one's finger should take to perform the action, the method Android copied.
Maybe Android should leave the screen black before performing the unlock as was the case with this supposed prior art.

Exactly. Most of the people commenting on Apple's patents and prior art don't have any clue what they're talking about.

Apple's patent involves a specific mechanism which includes icons, following a path on the screen, and the icon moving with the swipe. The Neonode phone doesn't do that. Patents are VERY specific.
"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 #72 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


If that's true, then it simply establishes that most Android phones are low end.
It has been well established that Android 2.2 and 2.3 are the predominant OSs and that very, very few Android phones ever see an update.
Heck, they're still selling Android 2.2 phones today - several years after that OS was released.

Who is selling an Android 2.2 phone? I really can't think of any.

 

Walk into a store and half of the Android phones are on ICS and the other half on Gingerbread.

 

All of them being able to run all the apps on the market.

Retina Macbook Pro - 2.6ghz

Galaxy Nexus - Jelly Bean!

Reply

Retina Macbook Pro - 2.6ghz

Galaxy Nexus - Jelly Bean!

Reply
post #73 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Let's say that you're right and a few million Nexus users update to 4.1.1. Given that Google claims hundreds of millions of users per day, it's still a tiny percentage.
Again, history tells us that only a very small number of Android users are ever able to upgrade.

 

Android users are funny. First a new version comes out (like ICS) and they all talk about how much better it is than iOS and more advanced. Then when they find out they won't get it they claim "I'm happy with my old version as it does everything I need."

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by corerooted View Post

 

LMAO! Wow... I love the uninformed... Yeah, ever heard of the Neonode? No, probably not... However, do a quick search on the N1m then come back and and say that it wasn't slide to unlock.

 

As others have pointed out, the Neonode had a very simple gesture system with no graphics or icons. You slid your finger across the bottom of the screen (following the edge). Swipe right is "Yes", swipe left is "No". To unlock the phone you press the power button and select "Yes" (slide right) when the lock screen appears. If you don;t want to unlock the phone you could slide left to select "No". Other gestures included selecting one of the three menus by siping from the bottom of the screen to the top on the left, middle or right of the device.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

Huh? Who even brought up a heuristic algorithm from Google? Last comment I made was referring to a very specific algorithm patented by Standford University compared to the very vague and general 'Universal Search' patent granted to Apple. The patent granted to Apple doesn't even identify any unique algorithm, but just describes a general ability to search for different types of assets on a device. I hardly consider the idea of searching for items and data on a device to be a "nonobvious" as required for being granted a patent.

 

So you're saying only complex patents should be granted? That's ridiculous. Some of the best ideas (patents) are simple. Ask any engineer the best way to solve a problem and they'll tell you the simplest one with the least parts would be best. Nowhere does it say a patent has to be complex to be valid.

 

Besides, this patent has so far held up in court so you are in no position to say it's invalid or shouldn't have been granted.

 

The bottom line is all the haters are screaming about Apple patents and making sweeping statements like "there should be no software patents" or "simple patents shouldn't be granted" without realizing that many products they use are based on the types of patents they oppose. They are so blinded by hate of Apple that they're willing to "throw the baby out with the bath water".

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #74 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaroonMushroom View Post

And that 2 year old captivate still runs every app in the app store.

Actually it runs none of the "Apps in the App Store", it runs Java program's from the Android market...

...including repackaged ones containing Trojans.

http://www.zdnet.com/android-malwares-dirty-secret-repackaging-of-legit-apps-7000000886/
Edited by hill60 - 7/14/12 at 8:40pm
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 #75 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaroonMushroom View Post

Who is selling an Android 2.2 phone? I really can't think of any.

 

Walk into a store and half of the Android phones are on ICS and the other half on Gingerbread.

 

All of them being able to run all the apps on the market.

 

Really? A quick look at AT&T shows three 2.2 phones and several 2.3 phones. I didn't have time to go over all the models to see what other devices they sell. T-Mobile also has several 2.3 phones on their main page. None of these were in the "refurbished" category.

 

Go to Samsung and look at all their "smartphones". They have 2.2 and 2.3 phones as well, with dinky 2.8" and 3.14" 240x320 screens.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #76 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaroonMushroom View Post

And that 2 year old captivate still runs every app in the app store.

 

The reason is because the developers aren't even coding for new API's (features) in the latest versions of Android. They code to the lowest common denominator (API level) so their apps can run on the widest possible number of devices.

 

Don't make it out like your phone is somehow special or that Android doesn't have a fragmentation problem. What's the point of Google announcing ICS and JB and making all sorts of new features if NONE of the app developers are even targeting those features?

 

At least older iPhones get MOST of the features/API's of a new iOS release instead of being completely left out in the cold with none of the newset features.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #77 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

Really? A quick look at AT&T shows three 2.2 phones and several 2.3 phones. I didn't have time to go over all the models to see what other devices they sell. T-Mobile also has several 2.3 phones on their main page. None of these were in the "refurbished" category.

 

Go to Samsung and look at all their "smartphones". They have 2.2 and 2.3 phones as well, with dinky 2.8" and 3.14" 240x320 screens.

My AT&T store doesn't sell a single one beneath Gingerbread. Full sized AT&T store. I'm sure I could find the original iphone online too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

The reason is because the developers aren't even coding for new API's (features) in the latest versions of Android. They code to the lowest common denominator (API level) so their apps can run on the widest possible number of devices.

 

Don't make it out like your phone is somehow special or that Android doesn't have a fragmentation problem. What's the point of Google announcing ICS and JB and making all sorts of new features if NONE of the app developers are even targeting those features?

 

At least older iPhones get MOST of the features/API's of a new iOS release instead of being completely left out in the cold with none of the newset features.

You don't know to much about Android apps do you? They can build their app at the highest API level and the android market will distribute the correct APK to the device.

 

Here's a good example. I build an app that requires a front facing camera. I need to use the API level that uses front facing cameras. Only phone on Gingerbread or higher even have front facing cameras. This means it won't show up in the market for 2.2 or lower devices.

 

So again, what APIs / features would a Nexus One be missing out on if it only has gingerbread? The point I'm trying to make is that the API levels for 2.2+ are almost identical and the device version barely matters at all.

Retina Macbook Pro - 2.6ghz

Galaxy Nexus - Jelly Bean!

Reply

Retina Macbook Pro - 2.6ghz

Galaxy Nexus - Jelly Bean!

Reply
post #78 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


Actually it runs none of the "Apps in the App Store", it runs Java program's from the Android market...
...including repackaged ones containing Trojans.
http://www.zdnet.com/android-malwares-dirty-secret-repackaging-of-legit-apps-7000000886/

Oh cool. I tried download some iOS malware and it didn't work

 

http://www.csoonline.com/article/710834/apple-app-store-gets-first-malware-app

Retina Macbook Pro - 2.6ghz

Galaxy Nexus - Jelly Bean!

Reply

Retina Macbook Pro - 2.6ghz

Galaxy Nexus - Jelly Bean!

Reply
post #79 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaroonMushroom View Post

My AT&T store doesn't sell a single one beneath Gingerbread. Full sized AT&T store. I'm sure I could find the original iphone online too.

 

You don't know to much about Android apps do you? They can build their app at the highest API level and the android market will distribute the correct APK to the device.

 

Here's a good example. I build an app that requires a front facing camera. I need to use the API level that uses front facing cameras. Only phone on Gingerbread or higher even have front facing cameras. This means it won't show up in the market for 2.2 or lower devices.

 

So again, what APIs / features would a Nexus One be missing out on if it only has gingerbread? The point I'm trying to make is that the API levels for 2.2+ are almost identical and the device version barely matters at all.

 

I could care less what your local AT&T store carries. Your original statement was: "Who is selling an Android 2.2 phone? I really can't think of any." The fact is that you can buy brand new phones from AT&T and T-Mobile that run both 2.2 and 2.3 (I never bothered to check other carriers but I'd bet they also sell similar devices). This proves your statement to be 100% false. Then you try to change gears by stating your local AT&T store doesn't carry any (which I don't believe). Which store is it? What city/state? It should be easy to find out which devices they carry in-store.

 

I developed for Android and iOS (now only iOS). It appears you're the one who doesn't understand Android development. What I stated was 100% correct. If I write an App to use the latest features/API's it's not available to older devices. I'm not talking about API's that have nothing to do with the user (like depracated API's replaced with newer versions). Developers can easily perform a check and perform the correct call to the API based on the version the device is running. I'm talking about new features that didn't exist in previous versions. I'd love for you to tell me how a developer can make use of these new features in an App, and have that App still run on an older version of Android.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #80 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

So you're saying only complex patents should be granted? That's ridiculous. Some of the best ideas (patents) are simple. Ask any engineer the best way to solve a problem and they'll tell you the simplest one with the least parts would be best. Nowhere does it say a patent has to be complex to be valid.

 

 

No, that is not what I'm saying. I said that patents should be "non-obvious", and some vague, indescript patent for "finding things" does not qualify as such.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Court grants Samsung request to expedite Galaxy Nexus injunction appeal