Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood 
Google owns a patent on the notification center. Samsung also holds a patent on how they implemented it on their phones. Like most innovations these days, everybody adds a minor twist and tries to use that minor twist to block others from using the whole technology. The current system encourages micropatented nifty but relatively underwhelming things. Mobile patents seem to be among the worst since a huge number of the patents are things that have been done for years- but people are patenting that same functionality with the innovation being that it is now 'on a mobile device'
Google has not chosen to sue Apple using its patent. Just because you have a patent doesn't mean you have to sue everyone. They may choose to sue Apple at a later date (and may even be encouraged to do so if Samsung wins, or it may encourage Apple to settle out of court with Google)
Samsung has chosen to sue Apple using its patent. This particular case is about Samsung vs Apple.
The courts and lawyers should just save a lot of time and money and use my verdict.
Verdict:
Notifications were a highly innovative and extremely useful addition to mobile devices. No mobile device (not even the iPhone) could even really be considered modern without it. Google came up with it, Samsung implemented it, and Apple saw its benefit. Apple copied it fairly blatantly, with barely even a minor cosmetic difference.
Apple: Guilty of infringing on Samsungs patent.
Samsungs patent (and Googles if they choose to 'expose' it to the courts): Useful. Innovative. Obvious. Fairly trivial. Invalid.
Damages: 0
If the courts keep doing this consistently to both sides, they will learn that paying a lot of money for lawyers to argue with each other isn't panning out and patenting trivial things isn't going to get you a billion dollars nor gain an injunction to prevent any competition in the market.
The 'bar' for what constitutes a patent needs to be set far closer to an invention than an innovation:
You come to the patent office with something more akin to 'electricity' Yep. That's a patent. FRAND only.
You come to the patent office with:
Cut and paste has been on desktops for years via highlighting and dragging with a mouse. My 'amazing' invention is you do the same thing on a touchscreen, but now you're using your finger! Other companies can still compete if I choose not to license my patent, they'll just have to have their users carry around a mouse and connect it to their cell phones (*snicker*). No patent for you.
Google owns a patent on the notification center. Samsung also holds a patent on how they implemented it on their phones. Like most innovations these days, everybody adds a minor twist and tries to use that minor twist to block others from using the whole technology. The current system encourages micropatented nifty but relatively underwhelming things. Mobile patents seem to be among the worst since a huge number of the patents are things that have been done for years- but people are patenting that same functionality with the innovation being that it is now 'on a mobile device'
Google has not chosen to sue Apple using its patent. Just because you have a patent doesn't mean you have to sue everyone. They may choose to sue Apple at a later date (and may even be encouraged to do so if Samsung wins, or it may encourage Apple to settle out of court with Google)
Samsung has chosen to sue Apple using its patent. This particular case is about Samsung vs Apple.
The courts and lawyers should just save a lot of time and money and use my verdict.
Verdict:
Notifications were a highly innovative and extremely useful addition to mobile devices. No mobile device (not even the iPhone) could even really be considered modern without it. Google came up with it, Samsung implemented it, and Apple saw its benefit. Apple copied it fairly blatantly, with barely even a minor cosmetic difference.
Apple: Guilty of infringing on Samsungs patent.
Samsungs patent (and Googles if they choose to 'expose' it to the courts): Useful. Innovative. Obvious. Fairly trivial. Invalid.
Damages: 0
If the courts keep doing this consistently to both sides, they will learn that paying a lot of money for lawyers to argue with each other isn't panning out and patenting trivial things isn't going to get you a billion dollars nor gain an injunction to prevent any competition in the market.
The 'bar' for what constitutes a patent needs to be set far closer to an invention than an innovation:
You come to the patent office with something more akin to 'electricity' Yep. That's a patent. FRAND only.
You come to the patent office with:
Cut and paste has been on desktops for years via highlighting and dragging with a mouse. My 'amazing' invention is you do the same thing on a touchscreen, but now you're using your finger! Other companies can still compete if I choose not to license my patent, they'll just have to have their users carry around a mouse and connect it to their cell phones (*snicker*). No patent for you.
Except NC existed on the iPhone long before samescum or google stole the idea. Lockinfo by David Ashman, late 2008, for JB iPhones. Who stole who's idea? Look it up. http://www.lockinfo.net/ version 1.1 was available for download through Cydia in January 2009. Google can't sue as prior art will kill any suit dead in its tracks."Google came up with it". The word is STOLE. Google don't create anything, like samescum, they just steal. Show me NC on android prior to 2008, please, I beg you!!!!! You can't.
Your verdict. Shot down. In flames. Prior art, prior art. You lose. Go dance on someone else's grave.
Edited by Kr00 - 12/22/12 at 1:24pm
.
