or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Years of patent suit losses prompted Apple to strike back with iPhone filings
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Years of patent suit losses prompted Apple to strike back with iPhone filings - Page 2

post #41 of 62
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
Where can I read the complete list? :D

 

Feel free to offer suggestions for changes and additions.

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 #42 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


Any objections or critical statements made by myself or others will be regarded as "pathetic" in the eyes of the fans. So it doesnt matter what kind of statements I make. Whats the point? Any valid facts and figures mentioned that goes against the Apple thinking will be deemed a troll worthy or an Android fanatic.

 

Don't forget the sources of the junk you post, such as that article based on Groklaw a site that should have died when SCO was over but continues on by using the popular notion of attacking Apple and whining on how unfair everything is in a vague attempt to retain some relevance.

 

They became a garbage site full of quasi legal illiterate trash.

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 #43 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Fixed, but yes, agreed. It's astonishing that something didn't happen to Schmidt personally, really. A black eye, even.

Maybe...just maybe...Schmidt did nothing wrong.

You and your conspiracy theorist nutjob peers literally have no proof of anything underhanded happening with Schmidt...worst...you're even suggesting that Jobs and Co were, at best, naive and at worst absolutely retarded when it came to Schmidt.

But anything to further your hatred of Google even if it makes no sense.
post #44 of 62
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post
Maybe...just maybe...Schmidt did nothing wrong.

 

Maybe, but no.

 

You and your conspiracy theorist nutjob peers literally have no proof of anything underhanded happening with Schmidt...

 

Of course not.

 

worst…you're even suggesting that Jobs and Co were… …naive… …when it came to Schmidt.

 

Hardly. 

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 #45 of 62
I guess I am the only person who thinks that companies are spending money litigating and defending patents is not a waste of time and money. Technology patents are not simple ideas that can be defended with a modicum of common sense and logic. They are extremely complex instruments that are made more powerful when placed in context with other patents. A company that has spent years generating patents around certain assumptions may find itself in a very uncomfortable place if an innovative challenger appears who disrupts his business model.

The current smartphone patent war is no small potatoes dispute. It is the battle royal for the largest consumer market in the world. Dozens of companies with 10's of thousands of patents are fighting to make money in this market. With out the courts and the intellectual property rights we have in place there would never be the hugh incentive to create new and improved phones and software. With literally Trillions of $'s at stake why wouldn't there be a huge battle over patents? If there was no battle there would be no incentive to create competing systems. Prices would be higher, software would be less effective, and innovation would be greatly decreased.
post #46 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Maybe, but no.


Of course not.


Hardly. 

Qualify something...or better yet, what did Android 1.0 steal from iOS and also why did it take Google almost 2 years after the iPhone announcement to release a crappy Android 1.0 if Schmidt had insider knowledge and was feeding this information to Google's Android team?

Why was Android 1.0 (and 1.1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.0, 3.1, 4.0. 4.1) so different from iOS in form and function if it was copied directly from iOS with insider knowledge?

Why didn't happy litigator Steve Jobs sue or condemn Schmidt specifically for stealing iOS while on the board?

Why hasn't Apple directly gone after Google with this proof of insider theft and effectively destroy Google's mobile effort overnight?

Are they naive? Stupid? Lazy? Which one is it?

Your take on events (not supported by any evidence) doesn't just paint Google/Schmidt in a bad light, it paints Apple/Jobs/Cook/etc in a bad light as well.

So why do you believe that Steve Jobs is a moron and that Apple is a company run by idiots?
post #47 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macnewsjunkie View Post

I guess I am the only person who thinks that companies are spending money litigating and defending patents is not a waste of time and money. Technology patents are not simple ideas that can be defended with a modicum of common sense and logic. They are extremely complex instruments that are made more powerful when placed in context with other patents. A company that has spent years generating patents around certain assumptions may find itself in a very uncomfortable place if an innovative challenger appears who disrupts his business model.
The current smartphone patent war is no small potatoes dispute. It is the battle royal for the largest consumer market in the world. Dozens of companies with 10's of thousands of patents are fighting to make money in this market. With out the courts and the intellectual property rights we have in place there would never be the hugh incentive to create new and improved phones and software. With literally Trillions of $'s at stake why wouldn't there be a huge battle over patents? If there was no battle there would be no incentive to create competing systems. Prices would be higher, software would be less effective, and innovation would be greatly decreased.

If you make a door and hinge assembly that has the purpose of, well, being a door...and I create a door and hinge assembly, that is also a door yet doesn't work the exact same way at all though yields the same result should you, with your specific door and hinge assembly be able to sue me, with my specific door and hinge assembly simply because they both serve the same purpose?
post #48 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macnewsjunkie View Post
The current smartphone patent war is no small potatoes dispute. It is the battle royal for the largest consumer market in the world. Dozens of companies with 10's of thousands of patents are fighting to make money in this market. With out the courts and the intellectual property rights we have in place there would never be the hugh incentive to create new and improved phones and software. With literally Trillions of $'s at stake why wouldn't there be a huge battle over patents? If there was no battle there would be no incentive to create competing systems. Prices would be higher, software would be less effective, and innovation would be greatly decreased.

I don't know of any evidence that innovation in the tech industry would stop or even slow down without significant software patent protection. If you have some, please share it. I've seen several members here repeat that over and over, but never bother to post studies that support the claim. I call it a bogus argument. If the billions in profit isn't enough incentive to innovate, I personally don't think software patents are going to tip the scales.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #49 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Qualify something...or better yet, what did Android 1.0 steal from iOS and also why did it take Google almost 2 years after the iPhone announcement to release a crappy Android 1.0 if Schmidt had insider knowledge and was feeding this information to Google's Android team?
Why was Android 1.0 (and 1.1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.0, 3.1, 4.0. 4.1) so different from iOS in form and function if it was copied directly from iOS with insider knowledge?
Why didn't happy litigator Steve Jobs sue or condemn Schmidt specifically for stealing iOS while on the board?
Why hasn't Apple directly gone after Google with this proof of insider theft and effectively destroy Google's mobile effort overnight?
Are they naive? Stupid? Lazy? Which one is it?
Your take on events (not supported by any evidence) doesn't just paint Google/Schmidt in a bad light, it paints Apple/Jobs/Cook/etc in a bad light as well.
So why do you believe that Steve Jobs is a moron and that Apple is a company run by idiots?

Remember when the first Android phone launched in the US, it didn't have multi-touch, that came later, first in Europe then in the US.

Why was that, do you think?

Score:-

Apple and Microsoft patents infringed by Android as applied by various courts = 17.

Android patents infringed by Apple and Microsoft as applied by various courts = 1.

Good luck buying a Motorola Android device in Germany, the choice is rather limited.

Google bit off more than they could chew by having their subsidiary open proceedings there.
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 #50 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


Remember when the first Android phone launched in the US, it didn't have multi-touch, that came later, first in Europe then in the US.
Why was that, do you think?
 

 

A short blog on that very same question.

http://nilaypatel.co/post/4560071762/the-android-multitouch-story-gets-even-murkier

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #51 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

If you make a door and hinge assembly that has the purpose of, well, being a door...and I create a door and hinge assembly, that is also a door yet doesn't work the exact same way at all though yields the same result should you, with your specific door and hinge assembly be able to sue me, with my specific door and hinge assembly simply because they both serve the same purpose?

Of course not. You can't patent a concept like opening or closing a door. You can only patent a specific implementation. So if your door assembly does not fall under his specific patent claims, he can't sue.

You really should take the time to learn how patents work before embarrassing yourself further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macnewsjunkie View Post

I guess I am the only person who thinks that companies are spending money litigating and defending patents is not a waste of time and money. Technology patents are not simple ideas that can be defended with a modicum of common sense and logic. They are extremely complex instruments that are made more powerful when placed in context with other patents. A company that has spent years generating patents around certain assumptions may find itself in a very uncomfortable place if an innovative challenger appears who disrupts his business model.

No, you're not the only one. There are actually quite a few people here who think that intellectual property rights should be respected and enforced. It's just that we sometimes get drowned out by all the braying from the Samsung/Google/Microsoft/ETC shills.
"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 #52 of 62
"However, public filings show that last year, for the first time, both Apple and Google spent more on purchasing and litigating patents than research and development of new products."

Great the lawyers win again whatever the outcome. Money directed away from mostly underpaid creative people to overpaid legal people. Law is still an absurd practice as Charles Dickens liked to point out.
post #53 of 62

Every time I read the comments on AI, I picture a hobo standing next to a rail line just about to switch the track for an incoming train, the motive ? To derail it.

Whats so disappointing is the people that allow this to happen.

Just ignore them.

I have been reading posts for a few years and I chuckle at the shear stupidity of people's lame attempts to form any coherent arguments.

One reads bile from elementary educated trolls, to the more sophisticated "fog" from the likes of GG, but the motives are all the same.

There are basically two types of people on the planet, those that can see and appreciate beauty and those that are blind to it.

No amount of arguing, attempting to "educate" them will work, their brains are simply unable to process the imagery and stimulate the thought processes.

Getting back to the thread, oops, I myself derailed it - sorry !

What I don't understand that back in 2007 when the iPhone was announced, and Steve Jobs mentioned that its been patented, why has it taken so long for Apple to begin protecting their IP ?  As I remember, and please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the first Android phones not have pinch to zoom, and only later had this functionality.

Why so ? Is it because they did not have the technology at the time, or were scared in being taken to court ?

Surely when they began infringing on rubber banding and other IP of Apple's why didn't Apple instigate court proceedings there and then ?

post #54 of 62
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

What I don't understand that back in 2007 when the iPhone was announced, and Steve Jobs mentioned that its been patented, why has it taken so long for Apple to begin protecting their IP ?  As I remember, and please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the first Android phones not have pinch to zoom, and only later had this functionality.

Why so ? Is it because they did not have the technology at the time, or were scared in being taken to court ?

Surely when they began infringing on rubber banding and other IP of Apple's why didn't Apple instigate court proceedings there and then ?

 

Because Apple did something the trolls are pretending never happens ever: licensing.

 

Apple knew they were infringing, went to the companies, asked them to license the stuff, was all nice and stuff about it, and they said no. So lawsuits. Booyah. Teach 'em how the world works.

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 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Fixed, but yes, agreed. It's astonishing that something didn't happen to Schmidt personally, really. A black eye, even.

Very few gangsters in the computer industry.
"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 #56 of 62
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
Very few gangsters in the computer industry.

 

Didn't know you had to be a gangster (of either the original, fearsome, '30s type or the new, laughable, '00s type) to sock someone upside the head.

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 #57 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Didn't know you had to be a gangster (of either the original, fearsome, '30s type or the new, laughable, '00s type) to sock someone upside the head.

Lol, complete lack of tough guys in that industry. Lots of code crackers but no skull crackers.
"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 #58 of 62

Yes, history has proven your statements.

My question is, why did it take them (Apple) so long to do so ?

The law suits did not start until 2009, maybe later, perhaps I'm mistaken.

In all, I agree that Apple should protect their IP, but it seems that there are many on this forum who disagree.

Although I did get good chuckle in the door hinge analogy, how come this guy is not working for NASA ?

post #59 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Remember when the first Android phone launched in the US, it didn't have multi-touch, that came later, first in Europe then in the US.
Why was that, do you think?
Score:-
Apple and Microsoft patents infringed by Android as applied by various courts = 17.
Android patents infringed by Apple and Microsoft as applied by various courts = 1.
Good luck buying a Motorola Android device in Germany, the choice is rather limited.
Google bit off more than they could chew by having their subsidiary open proceedings there.

Apple doesn't own the concept of multitouch, genius.

And Apple never sued Google, neither has microsoft.

But you ignored the meat of my post...I'll transfer direction to you even though it was directed towards the worst global mod in history...

why do you and your ilk think Apple is run by morons and that Steve Jobs was the biggest moron of them all?
post #60 of 62
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post
Apple doesn't own the concept of multitouch, genius.

 

Don't recall him saying they did, toe-the-line insult.


And Apple never sued Google, neither has microsoft.

 

Motorola Mobility = Google.

 

But you ignored the meat of my post...I'll transfer direction to you even though it was directed towards the worst global mod in history...
 

Yay, more hate directed at me. How droll.


why do you and your ilk think Apple is run by morons and that Steve Jobs was the biggest moron of them all?

 

Dude, there was a drought this year. There's not enough viable straw in the entire country to fill the man you've just built.

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 #61 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

 

One of the defining aspects of Apple's history is the widespread belief that Apple's inventions in the 1980s were stolen by Microsoft.  Everyone in that audience who laughed and applauded understood what Jobs was referring to.  It is outrageous that something similar is happening again, and some of the blame goes to Jobs in my opinion.  Schmidt should not have been on the board, or should have been kicked to the curb much earlier than he was.  


This.

 

For all those people who constantly peddle out the "This wouldn't have happened if Steve were alive", bear in mind that this is perhaps the most costly mistake since Apple's rebirth.

post #62 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

 

One of the defining aspects of Apple's history is the widespread belief that Apple's inventions in the 1980s were stolen by Microsoft.  Everyone in that audience who laughed and applauded understood what Jobs was referring to.  It is outrageous that something similar is happening again, and some of the blame goes to Jobs in my opinion.  Schmidt should not have been on the board, or should have been kicked to the curb much earlier than he was.  

 

On the contrary, Apple needed Google's help in the beginning.  Imagine the first iPhone without Google Search, Maps, YouTube and cell id locating.  It would've been far less impressive and useful.

 

Some people also repeat nonsense about stealing secrets. Besides the fact that Jobs never accused him of such a thing, such an idea makes little sense.  Schmidt couldn't have given Google much of a head start even if he had wanted to.  The timing was against it:

 

He was only on the board for a few months before the iPhone came out, after which time it wasn't secret any more.  During most of those few months, even Jobs said they didn't have a working product.  By the time they did, it was only a few weeks before the iPhone was made public.   A few weeks or months is nothing over the past five years. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Years of patent suit losses prompted Apple to strike back with iPhone filings