Apple applies for iOS 'Notification Center' patent years after Google's 'Notification Bar' - Page 2

That's not correct. Someone somewhere made that claim apparently and it was accepted as true with bothering to confirm it.

 

Google showed the feature in Nov. of 2007, months before the jailbreak community had anything remotely similar. Perhaps the "jailbreakers" were influenced by Android but really it doesn't matter. Google obviously could not have borrowed the Android feature from them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MPukbH6D-lY

 

EDIT: Be sure to watch this video too for a look at the touchscreen smartphone running Android also shown in Nov/2007 (for the impatient, around the 3:20 mark), a month before Gizmondo's "Blackberry" article you linked. There were several Android proof-of-concept smartphones, with the Blackberry-like (or really more Microsoft-ish) version only one of those.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_avwGFsv60U

Edited by Gatorguy - 1/3/13 at 6:14pm

 

 

You both do not seem to understand patent law and the article (as  far as patent law we all have mandatory classes in Europe in tech universities so lawyers dfo not selll BS and do not charge for BS).

 

1. Yes you can use patented invention and patent owner will charge license for it. patent does not prohibit using idea - iyt may not be free of charge, but patent holder CANNOT discrimante a company or it will be loser at court and paying fines for discrimative licensing.

 

2. Samsung had a big R&D just in component department. They are not as good in consumer market and that's where they accept copying a lot from such powerful in ideas companies like Apple. I always sauy that Samsung should stay in what they are masters of - electronics components - and not to try to challenge market where they do not have clue (about the same as some hardware companies think they can be good at software and the other way around).

 

3. The claim is that Samsung stole some inventions from Apple which I bet is true in many palces, but i would be carful in others. Apple is getting to greedy and many "inventions " like gestures have been alwasy big BS (no you should not be able to patent natural human gestures that we use in daily communications just to have them for device communications). That's why that carp was adjused to patent laws in Europe and many has been dropped.

 

At last somehing getting resolved in twisted corporate place that happens to be USA. I love the place that live in, but I need to dissappoint many because it becomes a bit more civilized just now when someone noticed that inventions and small business gets killed by corporate BS (which I also work for, but not for more longer as soon as I sort out my own buisness with ideas that I could not build on for years).

 

An arrogant Euro living two decades in the USA.

Of course we all know it, but is this a good time to try to patent it when people are suing it.

Not since day one, far from it. If you are aware of why they do this you would understand a little better. Microsoft ripped the code off the Macintosh OS, then a year later, they came out with windows. Apple sued but lost, because none of their work was patented and Apple pretty much just gave the OS to Microsoft, to write Word for the Mac. At this point Microsoft was primarily writing software for Apple, as their DOS OS was, well, crap. Microsoft made a deal with IBM, securing their future. The rest is history. "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you". You, can, not, blame them.

Then Growl would be the true owner of notifications, as they've been writing their notifications centre for the Mac since 2004. Or is that too obscure for you?

Apple never licensed their Mac OS to Microsoft. They gave them some new Macs under testing, so MS could write their Word program for the Mac. Microsoft just took the code for Mac OS, wrote windows and became rich in one foul swoop. Apple sued but lost, as they had no licensing agreement and the software had no copyright or patent protection, as it wasn't on the market at the time. 

 

Xerox didn't license anything to Apple. They had a shared arrangement. Apple stock in exchange for three visits to their PARC project and access to the engineers. Xerox discontinued the project before Apple released the Macintosh. Xerox sued, but lost.

 

You seem to make a lot of things up. What you think and what is fact, seem to be two totally different things.

Edited by Kr00 - 1/4/13 at 1:00am

Any source to back this? Because bigboss programs came in beta in August 2.008 according to him

deleted

Edited by MacRulez - 5/16/13 at 12:13pm

 

 

Kr00, I was going to avoid calling you out as a "someone, somewhere" who claimed the jail-breaker notification story to be true without bothering to check, but I've changed my mind. 

 

I'm sure you remember writing:

"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."

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/155159/samsung-sues-apple-in-korea-over-ios-notification-center/40#post_2250401

 

Then after I gave you the evidence to prove what you said couldn't be proven you went on to write in your next reply:

"You really need to check your facts. My use of the app Cydia, was incorrect, it was the installer app, released in 2007. David Ashman had a hack in September of 2008, that required the user install using a .deb file via SSH (I should know, I did it myself), then a download was available via the installer app, January 2009. How on earth could android have this as it had no touch screen phones available until late 2009? Nice try, but you fail. Best stick to facts and not the dreams you seem to live off. Google stole the idea, as did samescum. You can't provide any evidence to the contrary."

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/155159/samsung-sues-apple-in-korea-over-ios-notification-center/40#post_2250599

 

Of course I did provide evidence to the contrary. That you then preferred to move the goalposts rather than admit fault does not change the fact that I was 100% correct and you were 100% wrong on whether Google stole the idea of notifications from an iPhone jailbreaker.

 

Too obscure?

Edited by Gatorguy - 1/4/13 at 8:45am

"For us this ... has always been about something much more important than patents or money. It’s about values. We value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. And we do this to delight our customers, not for competitors to flagrantly copy." - Tim Cook

 

And even it is not a notification pull down, it is a lock screen info.

It's my personal belief that Android developers did take inspiration from Growl. This is based on various sources indicating developers using OSX platforms to code, the popularity of Growl, and the fact that it has been open source in the public domain for nearly a decade now.

 

I don't know where Growl's origins stem from and I didn't trace notification centers further back in time because I was merely trying to figure out this seemingly chicken < > egg conundrum.

 

This information doesn't help me resolve who stole what from where or whom but simply was interesting as an exercise in tracing how good or merely popular ideas inspire developers and are subsequently recycled.

 

According to a 1990 lawsuit document, Xerox did license Apple in 1981 to create a joint Smalltalk project.  Shortly afterwards, Apple began developing the Lisa computer.  Apple's creation of the Mac was outside of that license.  

 

Later in 1987, when Apple filed for copyright registration of the Mac Finder, the application described it as a derivative work based on Lisa instead of crediting Xerox for the GUI.  Thus Xerox felt that the Mac copyrights should be declared invalid.

 

 

Right, however Apple only offered Xerox the right to buy pre-IPO shares.   A while back, I took the time to actually track down what happened from there:

 

Xerox paid $1.5 million for that 100,000 shares of Apple stock in August 1979. It split, and they sold 800,000 shares in Oct 1981 for $6,776,000, for a relatively meager profit of ~$5.2 million.  (Imagine if they'd held onto them!)

 

 

Xerox was still selling and enhancing their Star when the Mac came out.

 

 

True, partly due to the court not finding a direct copyright violation, and partly because their lawyers failed to respond to some requests in time.

Edited by KDarling - 1/5/13 at 7:10pm

You seem to be splitting hairs here. There was no license agreement on the PARC computer GUI arrangement in which Apple acquired the GUI of the Macintosh.. Smalltalk was a completely different project, unrelated to the discussion. So I'm correct on the share arrangement, Xerox did get their Apple shares, right?

The Xerox board had decided to end it's PARC (star) computer project, around the time Apple announced the Macintosh, that's why Apple got most of its computer engineers to work on the Mac GUI, they weren't happy about being ignored by Xerox. In the words of the Xerox chairman at the time, "we're in the copier business, not the computer business." The Star sold only 25,000 units and was far too expensive. Two ex engineers from Xerox then formed their own company that extended the Star computer concept, after Xerox scrapped it. The subsequent work and their company was sold to IBM. The Xerox board believed that nobody would use a mouse and that computers were only for big corporations, and dropped computers from their strategy. They felt they could never compete with IBM in that area. It only decided to take legal action after it saw how successful Apple had become using the acquired GUI.

Xerox primarily failed in its law suit against Apple, because they waited years after the event to sue, leaving them outside the statute of limitations.

One thing is clear from that time. There were some pretty shady deals going on, not documented or notorised in contract, so it's hard to know what the truth really was.

Perhaps you should read some books that state in detail what was happening around that time. The Steve Jobs biography and the Pirates of Silicon Valley.

Seeing as I was in university at the time these events took place, I only took a passing interest, until I bought my first Macintosh back in 1986. Since then, I have had a keen interest on the happenings, especially when Microsoft released windows. A lot of things written about that time aren't correct, but when the players talk about it, you'll find the truth buried in there somewhere. If only Bill Gates would come clean and reveal the truth about windows, only then will we know for sure.
Edited by Kr00 - 1/8/13 at 5:01pm

 

Wow.  I'm not sure what you're acting so upset about.  I was actually upholding most of what you said, while filling in details that are obviously not well known.

 

 

You're not only rude (looking at your past posts to others, it's a habit), you're also wrong.  Especially considering how many Wikipedia myths you repeated.

 

Although I've written articles for it (including the first accurate version of the iPhone entry in 2007), I don't use Wikipedia as a source, and I don't need books to tell me the history.  I lived through that time, was friends with many insiders, and was part of a couple of early home computer startups and peripheral makers.

 

My timelines are better than anything you'll read on Wikipedia, and I"m probably one of the few (only?) people to track down the Apple-Xerox stock money  and lawsuit details.

Edited by KDarling - 1/8/13 at 4:52pm

You may like to read my edit, prior to your reply.

I did however find it funny how a lot of your comments seem to mirror Wikipedia almost to a word.

Unless you were there in the room to witness these things, then the only way anyone can know is if they read about them. Hardly any of those events were covered in detail in the newspapers at the time. Even those two books I mentioned embellished the truth somewhat. Does anybody really know?