or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google argues popular Apple patents are de facto standards essential
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google argues popular Apple patents are de facto standards essential - Page 3

post #81 of 271
Funny thing is, one of the most blatant examples of ripping oft in the mobile phone arena (behind Samsung and their shameless ripping off of Apple) is Apple's shameless ripping off of the Android notification panel.
post #82 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

It's not reason at all, how did that personally effect you directly?

 

According to your logic, one is only "allowed" to hate something if it affects them directly?  

 

Warlords in Africa?  No problem, doesn't affect me directly.  

 

Racism?  Nah, I'm white.  

 

Child abusers?  I'm not a child, what's the big deal.

 

In my book it's perfectly fine to be disgusted with, or even "hate," people (and organizations) that behave in detestable ways.  I'm sure you'll sleep easier now :-)

post #83 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yes. I have a family to feed and using Windows was necessary. Next question.

 

That isn't the same thing. No one "forced" you to buy Windows. You decided it fit your needs better and you bought it.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #84 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



Yes. I have a family to feed and using Windows was necessary. Next question.

Get a different job then if using Windows effects your well being so much. 

post #85 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

 

According to your logic, one is only "allowed" to hate something if it affects them directly?  

 

Warlords in Africa?  No problem, doesn't affect me directly.  

 

Racism?  Nah, I'm white.  

 

Child abusers?  I'm not a child, what's the big deal.

 

In my book it's perfectly fine to be disgusted with, or even "hate," people (and organizations) that behave in detestable ways.  I'm sure you'll sleep easier now :-)

Good point, now show me where Google is a Warlord, Racist or a Child abuser.

post #86 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

That isn't the same thing. No one "forced" you to buy Windows. You decided it fit your needs better and you bought it.

Exactly but I'm sure he will come back with some more illogical arguments...

post #87 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

People still mock Siri even if it is useful...and who mocked multitouch?
Point is Apple didn't invent multitouch and without the other companies actually advancing the technology it couldn't even exist. Capacitive screens allow for multitouch, not Apple.
So there's only one way to implement mulit-touch on a capactiive screen? And there 's only one way to unlock a phone?
post #88 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


People still mock Siri even if it is useful...and who mocked multitouch?
Point is Apple didn't invent multitouch and without the other companies actually advancing the technology it couldn't even exist. Capacitive screens allow for multitouch, not Apple.

 

We had various forms of touch input for years and they all sucked until the first iPhone came out. It's not just about the hardware but the software as well.
 
post #89 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Yes but it didn't happen to me...just like I'm sure it didn't happen to Hill60.

 

When they came a snooping they would have found a locked network there.

 

What I dislike is their absolute disregard for my privacy.

 

"For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable." Bruce Schneier 2006

 

 

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #90 of 271

So google steals something, says "we can't figure out our own way to do it, so apple's way should be the standard because it's the best way to do it".  BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 

post #91 of 271

Google has done it forever. They scanned all those books without lifting a hand to see what the copyright situation was. They found it bo-ring. To be on a Google database should be an honor!

 

Google Music is only a place to store your own. The Google TV never spent a second worrying about rights. They just wanted to play the movies wherever they were, no credit. No opportunity to buy or rent. 

 

They are defective and psychopathic about intellectual property, until it's theirs.

post #92 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Funny thing is, one of the most blatant examples of ripping oft in the mobile phone arena (behind Samsung and their shameless ripping off of Apple) is Apple's shameless ripping off of the Android notification panel.

 

Um, tell me, did Google patent it? Copyright it? Bet you they didn't.

post #93 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

When they came a snooping they would have found a locked network there.

 

What I dislike is their absolute disregard for my privacy.

 

"For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable." Bruce Schneier 2006

 

 

More like IF they came snooping as you have no idea if they did or not. Dislike all you want but using the word hate against something a company just makes people look juvenile. 

post #94 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by rioviva View Post

I actually agree with Google. On that note, I think their search algorithms have become essential for the industry. As much as I've tried switching to Bing or Yahoo, I keep coming back to Google's engine.
Those algorithms should be de facto standards and licensed under FRAND
Brilliant first post!

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #95 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

More like IF they came snooping as you have no idea if they did or not. Dislike all you want but using the word hate against something a company just makes people look juvenile. 

 

They did, the evidence is the streetview picture of my house in Google maps taken prior to them being caught.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #96 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Funny thing is, one of the most blatant examples of ripping oft in the mobile phone arena (behind Samsung and their shameless ripping off of Apple) is Apple's shameless ripping off of the Android notification panel.

Why is it when Apple invents something people bring up the silliest examples of prior art like a photo frame, a video mockup of what the future might hold, Star Trek, or some early hominid tablet found in a cave in Southern France, but when it comes to Google prior art all of a sudden has so little meaning that an actual feature (note, not even a product) that was on devices of the same type in the same time frame means nothing?

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #97 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

They did, the evidence is the streetview picture of my house in Google maps.

Ahh so you know for a certainty that Google was trying to get access to your personal wireless network when the picture of your house was taken?

post #98 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Ahh so you know for a certainty that Google was trying to get access to your personal wireless network when the picture of your house was taken?

Yes, we know that Google Streetview cars were recording and accessing wireless access points when they were taking images and recording their geolocation. This is not something that can be argued by someone with a sound mind.

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #99 of 271
Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

That's why they stopped OEM licensing of Mac OS, that's why they don't license iOS etc. 

Actually they stopped doing OEM licensing because they lost tons of money trying to compete with Microsoft using a method that MS was much better at (even then) had all the better partners, and even worse for Apple, MS could do this without competing with themselves.  The key problem with Apple’s OEM deals was that they were still developing their own hardware.  Other venders always had the ability to under price Apple since they don’t have to subside the software with hardware unlike Apple.  Apple could never properly compete with their own partners (you want to avoid doing that) and that doesn’t even factor in the fact that Apple’s partners were never as big as Windows OEM vendors.

 

They tried to play in MS turf when MS knew all the tricks and they did so from the worst position possible.  MS was already king of the castle when Apple cloned their OS.  It was not a Jobs idea and it was the first thing to go when Jobs came back as CEO.  Jobs knew that as long as they were a hardware company they couldn't be in the cloning business.  MS overall is not a hardware company and when they are (Zune, Xbox) they don’t clone.  The sole exception is the Surface which isn’t for sale yet.  The only reason I see MS competing with cloners is the fact they are such a dominant position and the cloners are so dependent on MS for their survival.  They are really in a bad position.

post #100 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Yes, we know that Google Streetview cars were recording and accessing wireless access points when they were taking images and recording their geolocation. This is not something that can be argued by someone with a sound mind.

Yes this is true but Hill60 still doesn't know if they actually accessed that particular router or not. Either way wasn't Google actually cleared of any wrong doing?

post #101 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

There is actually relatively little wrong with the current patent system. It works, overburdened though it is. What's wrong is companies ripping off the patent holders and trying to change the law to fit their misdeeds. If Apple had ripped off Google, the obvious would still apply.

 

There are two key problems with the current patent system, both of which if fixed would do away with much patent litigation now.

 

The first is procedural. Patents don't get the review they need, and so patents that the engineers in the business would consider obvious and patents with prior art get approved. Once a patent is approved, the burden of proof becomes very high to invalidate it - which would only be justified if the evaluation process before approval was sufficiently rigorous.

 

The second is legal. You can hold on to a patent for decades, and then say "wait, this product that's been shipping all this time, it's infringing on my stuff." There should be a period of time, say a year after wide release, where failure to file becomes an implied license.

 

Edit: Oh, I'll add a third. Someone has a patent for a process for a very specific purpose (creating an automated response bot for a chat system) and then squints real hard and says "Hey, Siri infringes on this". The burden of proof for infringement on a patent described as related to a completely different process should be very high, the presumption should be that if the patent sets forth a way to handle a chat system, it only applies to chat systems.


Edited by GadgetDon - 7/20/12 at 9:07pm
post #102 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

We had various forms of touch input for years and they all sucked until the first iPhone came out. It's not just about the hardware but the software as well.
 

So? Why should that give others the right to steal Apple's ideas?
"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 #103 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Guess what.

 

As a member of MPEG LA, Google may not be able to use it's affiliate/subsidiary to enforce an agreement outside the scope of the terms of their existing membership agreement.

 

Oops, I think I heard the sound of a twelve and a half billion dollar bullet entering a foot.

 

Actually, I find it amusing that Motorola (a division of Google) is trying to block sales of XBoxes for being unwilling to pay the jacked up prices Motorola is demanding for their H.264 patents, when Google argued against H.264 because *horrors* there were patents involved. Not sure if that's irony or "a lousy way to win an argument".

post #104 of 271

Groan. Looks like friedarooni and absdezignz have hijacked yet another thread.

 

On to the next one...

post #105 of 271
Was the notification panel patented? If not then it's fair game. Next.
post #106 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Yes this is true but Hill60 still doesn't know if they actually accessed that particular router or not. Either way wasn't Google actually cleared of any wrong doing?

No, actually, they were found to have lied to regulators.

And, yes, if the drove by his house while his router was on, they accessed his wireless network, that's how the data collection program worked.

Although I can't believe I'm actually replying to tekstud.
post #107 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

so multitouch should belong to one company?
morons.

Anyone who uses a Z in replace of S cannot be taken seriously.

post #108 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

If Apple had tap, shake, rattle or roll to unlock that's what Googke would want to use.

Your absolutely correct. Whatever Apple had chosen to do would have been seen as being desirable to copy as they were first to market and thus first to success with the product concept and designs.


Edited by dmarcoot - 7/20/12 at 9:37pm
post #109 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
 
I could see it coming, but it's still funny!

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #110 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmarcoot View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

so multitouch should belong to one company?

morons.
Anyone who uses a Z in replace of S cannot be taken seriously.
He did explain once why he did that. IIRC the s version was already taken.
post #111 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Groan. Looks like friedarooni and absdezignz have hijacked yet another thread.

 

On to the next one...

 

Just the latest in an unending string of pseudonyms for Tekstud.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #112 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

Just the latest in an unending string of pseudonyms for Tekstud.

lol had him blocked so missed his post but can see he is still going on about me being tekstud even though a mod has told him otherwise.

post #113 of 271

It's more than just the hardware. As an iOS and Android developer, I can tell you that Apple's software implementation of multitouch is simply brilliant and allows for a fluid user-interface. Android's implementation is limited, slow and inelegant. The probably buy LCD panels and touch screen components from the same companies, but one is much more accurate. For instance, Apple actually tracks a lot of data about each touch and calculates touches based on that.  I believe that's what the patents are about... their implementation of multi-touch, not the fact of whether the technology existed before them or not.  Truth be told, there was nothing like the iPhone when it first debuted (I saw the original keynote).  Many people mocked the phone because it was so limited (no keyboard! no SD slot! no apps!).  But five years later, it's all common sense to have multitouch on a mobile device. It wasn't always that way.

post #114 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetDon View Post

 

There are two key problems with the current patent system, both of which if fixed would do away with much patent litigation now.

 

So, because there is a spotlight being shone on patent disputes now, versus the probably thousands of other cases on the books, it's suddenly MORE IMPORTANT to "do away with patent litigation"? No! 

 

Patent disputes should be sorted out in courtrooms or in voluntary mediation. Where else would disputes be handled? On Twitter? Here?

 

Patent disputes are no different from any other kind of property dispute and I believe rash changes to the USPTO for political points or to satisfy some nebulous public dissatisfaction would be bad for patents and have repercussions far beyond the intent.


Edited by SpamSandwich - 7/20/12 at 10:27pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #115 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

It's more than just the hardware. As an iOS and Android developer, I can tell you that Apple's software implementation of multitouch is simply brilliant and allows for a fluid user-interface. Android's implementation is limited, slow and inelegant. The probably buy LCD panels and touch screen components from the same companies, but one is much more accurate. For instance, Apple actually tracks a lot of data about each touch and calculates touches based on that.  I believe that's what the patents are about... their implementation of multi-touch, not the fact of whether the technology existed before them or not.  Truth be told, there was nothing like the iPhone when it first debuted (I saw the original keynote).  Many people mocked the phone because it was so limited (no keyboard! no SD slot! no apps!).  But five years later, it's all common sense to have multitouch on a mobile device. It wasn't always that way.

 

As I hear tell, Apple's version of multi-touch runs smoother due to iOS' Cocoa touch, which is in the core framework (it includes, among other things, Core animation and Core data). Because of this, touch events are given priority, whereas in Android it is not given priority and it will never be able to beat iOS in this respect because of the original programming decisions made for Android. Also, I think Apple has a patent that covers this exact thing. :D


Edited by SpamSandwich - 7/20/12 at 10:28pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #116 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Get a different job then if using Windows effects your well being so much. 

 

Jragosta has an exemplary posting history here and your reply to him is rather harsh.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #117 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

Jragosta has an exemplary posting history here and your reply to him is rather harsh.

lololol yeah right...ok. Jragosta regularly talks nonsense....

 

My reply was exactly what I wanted to say in the manner I wanted it to appear.

post #118 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Google: "if enough people copy your patents, we'll call it 'standards essential' thus making the copying retroactively legal."
Steve Jobs was right: "That 'don't be evil'? It's bullshit."

 

I was thinking the same thing.  The whole concept of their mission statement saying do no evil is like the devil saying thats his moto.  Do you think he's going to tell the truth.  Why would he?
 
post #119 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

so multitouch should belong to one company?
morons.

 

Let us say it slow so the "smart man" can understand.  There were many ways to implement multitouch before Apple and implementations that have come afterwards.  Apple's implementation belongs to them, the others belong to their creators.  They can try to use someone else's if they want them to or they can invest the money do it themselves.  Google spends plenty on other R&D like search but they make more from IOS than Android so they want access to other companies tech for free so they can give it away and not hurt their bottom line.  
 
Its moronic to think this is acceptable behavior.
 
 
post #120 of 271

The courts are supposed to protect people's property. It would be a pretty sorry state of affairs if the courts took Apple's property and forced them to give it away. Reminds me of the congress scene from Iron Man 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCxo6LIESsM

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google argues popular Apple patents are de facto standards essential