Apple warned Samsung of possible patent infringement in 2010 presentation - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazoobee 

 

This is a bit disingenuous isn't it?  The whole point is that Google ripped off Java to create Android in that "Davlik" is basically Java by another name.  Technically, Oracle sued over Java, but the whole point of the suit is that Android infringed on their IP.  

 

The thing that people should really sit up and take notice of about the Oracle/Google case is that it's pretty self-evident that Google did *intentionally* rip of Java in the creation of Davlik.  Thera are mountains of similarity between the two, and there are emails from Google employees that clearly state their intentions to rip off Java and change it just enough so they wouldn't have to pay anything or get caught.  There are many literary figures that have had their careers ended by so-called plagiarism wherein the small phrases they were supposed to have copied were much less damning than the pages and pages of similarities between Java and Davlik and no proof that they actually copied has ever come forward.  

 

The lesson there is that Oracle lost this rather obvious case.  The jury just didn't see it, and the jury in this case might not see the obviousness of Samsung copying Apple either.  It's not so much about who is right and wrong and what the law is as what the average juror at the end of the day is going to believe.  The facts are secondary as they were in the Oracle case.  

What I think tripped up Oracle in their suit was that there were some comments about Java being "open source" and that's what the jury bought into to form their verdict.

Apple, on the other hand, from day one, has asserted that patents are anything but open source. I was under the impression that they weren't even something that Apple would license until some of the negotiations between Apple and Samscum came to light in the course of this trial. 

In reading Apple's presentation carefully, it seems as if some of the unique features of iOS are not only being infringed upon by Android but also by Samscum's Bada, Microsoft Windows8 mobile/Metro/whatever and some other phone OSs. Apple may be over-reaching and this is going to be determined by the outcome of this trial. I hope Apple does prevail, but that's just my slant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmm 

Hehe... that is really silly.

 

Guys guys.... I'm still wondering on what basis Apple would pursue Google. Let me put it this way, what does the stock version of Android infringe upon specifically? This is a real question as I don't think anyone will mistake it for IOS. I'm asking because I'd like to see someone answer this, not because I care about Android. I think it's weird that anyone would identify themselves and relate to others based on the phone they use.

Please read "Apple's 2010 Presentation" that the core article this thread linked you to. Apple spells out exactly what Android infringes on. Here let me do it for you, go to:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102603522/Apple-Presentation

It's a 90 page presentation that is not hard to follow, although you may need to be a programmer to fully appreciate some of the details, the presentation calls out each and every case where Apple feels Android is infringing, AND the whole document was entered into evidence (Plaintiff's Exhibit #52)

Quote:

Originally Posted by amoradala 

Can you imagine if scientists judged their work but gut feeling and persuasion ?

They did that up until the early 1900s. The most obvious example is/was the "scientific" basis behind the Eugenics Movement of the late 1800s and into the first half of the 1900s, ending with the Nazis movement (and since revived by the White Supremacy movement. Check it out at: http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/

It may be argued that something akin to this is going on right now regarding Global Warming and other pet theories of the fringe right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harbinger 

Very good points. The expression "tried by a jury of your peers" is rather misleading. In any given trial and any given random jury, how many jurors are really the peers of the defendant in aspects of life pertaining to the trial?

Unfortunately, in today's world, a jury is often composed of people who are so uninformed as to be literally "living under a rock." Anyone with a moderate amount of interest and is capable of coming to a rational decision based on what they have read or heard, is unfit to sit on a jury.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 


So if Apple or Microsoft are successful in their litigation with Motorola or Motorola are found guilty of abusing SEP's under antitrust laws and penalties are imposed, who will be reporting the extraordinary losses to their shareholders?

One of Motorola Mobile's executives, likely the CEO. 

What you need to know is that the relationship between Google and Motorola Mobile is no different than that between RJR Tobacco and Kraft Foods. One owns the other as an asset. You seem to think Google has absorbed MotoMo into itself and MotoMo no longer exists as a separate corporation with officers, board of directors and stock holders.

All that said, if MotoMo lost a ton of money due to the suit outcome, and they are an asset of Google, Google's stock holders are going to ask some strong questions of Google's management for spending so much money on a depreciating asset. Shit runs uphill as well as down.

Worth re-posting pics of before and after iPhone.

Says the person who throws insults around when he doesn't like having his comments questioned. Sigh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anantksundaram 

When you grow up, you'll realize that there's a distinction between data and information. You'll also realize that if you're smart enough, you can handle information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazoobee 

 

I could have been oversensitive, I know I sometimes am.  

 

Your post however, whether intentionally or not, seemed to be making sweeping blanket statements about the unreliability of AppleInsider and stretching the language to do so.  You were then referring to a courtroom blog (essentially on the same level as the sort of information one might get here), as some kind of paramount "source."  

 

Hearsay is indeed sometimes used as a synonym for "rumour" it's one of it's main uses in fact.  Rumour is hearsay "passed along," by definition. 

I believe my comment were directed at the person who said he preferred to get his information from 1. here and 2. "insights from other posters". Well, we all know how reliable those insights are sometimes.

Regarding heresay, you are partially correct. Rumour is not necessarily heresy as it can also be made up and this have no valid starting point. Additionally, heresay is not necessarily rumour. Rumour implies a mix of truth and non truths, passed along as truths. Heresay is simply information not from the source. Any implication that I meant rumour when I said heresay is purely a mistake made by the reader.

I wonder if this holds true after the recent ruling against Google (complete with $22m fine), for going after user data even when users say "no"…?

I don't see Google in a 'very positive' light… I don't feel negative toward them, but perhaps now a bit more 'cautious'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

Contrary to what people around here feel, the general public views Google in a very positive light. 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton 


But that's pretty much what Samsung's lawyer John Quinn has been saying in court when the jury is presented evidence of blatant copying! "Does Apple own the color green?" was a question he asked Susan Kare. Samsung is paying Quinn over $800/hour to repeat forum troll arguments. Quinn is also asking Apple's expert witnesses how much Apple is paying them for their testimony, which is a lame attempt to discredit them. I think it's an ironic question coming from the highest paid person in the courtroom (Apple's lawyers aren't making $800/hour).

I know, and it's pretty ridiculous. I guess that was my point… 

A few posts came back saying things like "LG has ben using PACKAGING LIKE THIS since before iPhone…"  Well, LIKE this, as opposed to EXACTLY like this… 

LG yes… they've been using BOXES to package their phones… 

I've been buying mobile phones since they began (and I bought a lot of them while living in Japan), and there was NO experience like the 'unboxing' of an iPhone… Apple puts a huge amount of time, energy and design into the "user experience" of the packaging. So, when I see the Samsung phone emulating it almost identically, it becomes questionable.

No, Apple doesn't own a color… but they might take ownership of the USE of a color in a specific context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

… Is there really that much tentacle hentai cosplay out there? One would think a girl and her buddies (operating the tentacle monster) couldn't just walk around like that. 

So, I googled "tentacle hentai cosplay" and discovered that yes, actually there is an astonishing amount of that out there… 

Unfortunately, now I can't get the horrible images out of my mind… gah!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky the Macky 

 

Please read "Apple's 2010 Presentation" that the core article this thread linked you to. Apple spells out exactly what Android infringes on. Here let me do it for you, go to:

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102603522/Apple-Presentation

 

It's a 90 page presentation that is not hard to follow, although you may need to be a programmer to fully appreciate some of the details, the presentation calls out each and every case where Apple feels Android is infringing, AND the whole document was entered into evidence (Plaintiff's Exhibit #52)

I had read that… and that was the reason I asked my original question, why Apple isn't going after Google as well (or first and foremost)….

Quote:

Originally Posted by tribalogical 

 

I had read that… and that was the reason I asked my original question, why Apple isn't going after Google as well (or first and foremost)….

I don't know about any "original question," because the one I was answering was this one:
 

"I'm still wondering on what basis Apple would pursue Google. Let me put it this way, what does the stock version of Android infringe upon specifically? This is a real question as I don't think anyone will mistake it for IOS. I'm asking because I'd like to see someone answer this..."

So, if you read the PRESENTATION, why are you asking the question?

As for your "original question," I saw several people giving you some answers.

Here's mine: I suspect Samscum makes a better target because in addition to infringment by using Android, Samscum infringed by making their own UI shell that copied Apple's icons and UI, AND product packaging AND putting it all in a black rectangle with rounded corners. It's the equivalent to a school yard "double dog dare."

This just in: Dateline Rueters, one hour ago:  Motorola Mobility has told employees it plans to slash 20 percent of its workforce and shut down nearly a third of its offices worldwide. One-third of the 4,000 jobs lost will be in the United States as the company plans to exit unprofitable markets, stop making low-end devices and focus on a few cellphones instead of dozens. In addition to the coming cuts, Google has already downsized Motorola management, letting go 40 percent of its vice presidents. 

In a show of confidence in Motorola Mobility, Google has commissioned another company in Asia to make Google's new line of new iPad copies. 

Trust me, you jut can't make up news this good!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky the Macky 

If anyone's interested in reading an article that recently gave Steven Ballmer (a.k.a. Monkey boy) a case of loose bowels,

check out this Vanity Fair article: http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2012/08/microsoft-lost-mojo-steve-ballmer

 

That was a very interesting read!

Quote:

Originally Posted by IQatEdo 

 

That was a very interesting read!

Especially the bit about one product, the iPhone having higher sales than everything Microsoft does combined

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky the Macky 

This just in: Dateline Rueters, one hour ago:  Motorola Mobility has told employees it plans to slash 20 percent of its workforce and shut down nearly a third of its offices worldwide. One-third of the 4,000 jobs lost will be in the United States as the company plans to exit unprofitable markets, stop making low-end devices and focus on a few cellphones instead of dozens. In addition to the coming cuts, Google has already downsized Motorola management, letting go 40 percent of its vice presidents. 

 

In a show of confidence in Motorola Mobility, Google has commissioned another company in Asia to make Google's new line of new iPad copies. 

 

Trust me, you jut can't make up news this good!!

I wonder if they'll get rid of any of their astroturfers, the positive spin these chameleon advocates constantly post sometimes wears a bit thin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

 

Especially the bit about one product, the iPhone having higher sales than everything Microsoft does combined

That little gem wasn't lost on me. :)

All the best.

I would say that there is a necessary balancing act here and that currently we have too much complexity for too little benefit.  I have to admit I am thinking about the tax code when I say this.  This may well bias me towards simplicity.  My other reason for intuiting that simplicity of legal structure is a basic rule of logic.  If you are familiar with Occam's Razor you know that it is considered one of the basic underpinnings of modern scientific discourse.  The other example is EB White and Strunk who believe that the best prose style is short and to the point.