or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Android docs reveal before iPhone, Google's plan was a Java button phone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Android docs reveal before iPhone, Google's plan was a Java button phone

post #1 of 168
Thread Starter 
Before and after versions of Google's internal "software functional requirements" documents released in the Apple vs Samsung trial this week show that prior to Apple's 2007 iPhone debut, Google's vision for Android was a simple button phone running Sun's Java.

Android iPhone copy


It's well known that Google's original plan for Android shifted gears dramatically once Apple unveiled its own iPhone in early 2007. However, the documents exposed in court show how great that shift was and how little Google originally planned to disrupt the status quo in mobile phones.

Google acquired an existing Android project in 2005, which was essentially an offshoot of Danger, the Java platform powering TMobile's SideKick slider phone. Both Danger and Android were founded by former Apple employee Andy Rubin.

Andy Rubin



Android in 2006



Version 0.91 of the Google's project definition for Android, completed July 6, 2006, was not an open document. It is labeled "Google Proprietary" and "Highly Confidential."

The document outlined a product that "will at a minimum, support a keypad with the following keys: Numeric, Star, Pound, Send, End, Home Back, 2 Soft Keys, 5-way navigation (up down left right select)."

Beyond the required physical keyboard identical to Windows Mobile phones of the period, Google also noted that "touch screens will not be supported. The product was designed with the presence of discrete physical buttons as an assumption. However, there is nothing fundamental in the Product's architecture that prevents the support of touchscreens in the future."

Microsoft's definition of Windows Mobile Smartphone (a category including the Motorola Q and Samsung BlackJack) identically insisted on keypad buttons and by definition did not support touchscreens.

Google planned to essentially use existing reference designs for Windows Mobile Smartphone hardware and install Android as Sun's Java Mobile running on Linux. The 2006 definition flatly specifies "the Platform will be compatible with Java Platform, Micro Edition (Java ME)."

Android Java ME


In addition to Java applets, the system was also expected to run even simpler widgets, which it defined as "little application that reside in the Home Application. They are meant to be simple, graphic representations or interesting ideas. Examples include: current weather, stock quotes, sports scores."

The entire subject of how the web browser might work is simply populated with the placeholder "TK," used in documentation to indicate that portion was "to come" at some point in the future. However, it also included a section for WAP, also "TK," before Steve Jobs' unveiling that referred to WAP as the "baby Internet."

Other portions still "TK" in 2006 were multimedia frameworks, the handling of music and pictures, and any outline of how an Android phone might support email accounts, folders, attachments or rich text.

iPhone in 2007



When Jobs introduced the iPhone on stage six months later, he noted that Apple had been working on the product for two and half years, or about six months prior to Google's acquisition of the Android team (which already had a Java based product on the drawing board).



Jobs stated that, at the time, "the most advanced phones are called smartphones, so they say. And they typically combine a phone plus some e-mail capability, plus they say it's the Internet--it's sort of the baby Internet--into one device. And they all have these little plastic keyboards on them. And the problem is that they're not so smart and they're not so easy to use."

Jobs contrasted "regular cell phones," saying "they're not so smart, and they're not so easy to use. Smartphones are definitely a little smarter, but they actually are harder to use. They're really complicated. Just for the basic stuff people have a hard time figuring out how to use them. Well, we don't want to do either one of these things."

Instead, Jobs said, "what we want to do is make a leapfrog product that is way smarter than any mobile device has ever been, and super-easy to use. This is what iPhone is. So we're going to reinvent the phone."

button phones 2006


Job continued, "we're going to start with a revolutionary user interface. It is the result of years of research and development, and of course, it's an interplay of hardware and software. Now, why do we need a revolutionary user interface? Here's four smart phones, right: Motorola Q, the BlackBerry, Palm Treo, Nokia E62 -- the usual suspects.

"And, what's wrong with their user interfaces? Well, the problem with them is really sort of in the bottom 40 there. It's this stuff right there. They all have these keyboards that are there whether or not you need them to be there. And they all have these control buttons that are fixed in plastic and are the same for every application.

"Well, every application wants a slightly different user interface, a slightly optimized set of buttons, just for it. And what happens if you think of a great idea six months from now? You can't run around and add a button to these things. They're already shipped. So what do you do? It doesn't work because the buttons and the controls can't change. They can't change for each application, and they can't change down the road if you think of another great idea you want to add to this product."We solved it in computers 20 years ago. We solved it with a bit-mapped screen that could display anything we want. - Steve Jobs"

"Well, how do you solve this? It turns out we have solved it. We solved it in computers 20 years ago. We solved it with a bit-mapped screen that could display anything we want. Put any user interface up. And a pointing device. We solved it with the mouse. We solved this problem. So how are we going to take this to a mobile device? What we're going to do is get rid of all these buttons and just make a giant screen.

"Now, how are we going to communicate this? We don't want to carry around a mouse, right? So what are we going to do? Oh, a stylus, right? We're going to use a stylus. No. Who wants a stylus. You have to get em and put em away, and you lose em. Yuck. Nobody wants a stylus. So let's not use a stylus. We're going to use the best pointing device in the world. We're going to use a pointing device that we're all born with -- born with ten of them.

"We're going to use our fingers. We're going to touch this with our fingers. And we have invented a new technology called multi-touch, which is phenomenal. It works like magic. You don't need a stylus. It's far more accurate than any touch display that's ever been shipped. It ignores unintended touches, it's super-smart. You can do multi-finger gestures on it. And boy, have we patented it."

Android in 2007



Reacting to Jobs' demonstration, former Apple engineering lead and early Android team member Chris DeSalvo stated, "As a consumer I was blown away. I wanted one immediately. But as a Google engineer, I thought 'We're going to have to start over.'""What we had suddenly looked just so -- nineties" - Android developer Chris DeSalvo

Fred Vogelstein, in Dogfight: How Apple and Google Went to War and Started a Revolution quoted DeSalvo as observing, "what we had suddenly looked just so -- nineties. It's just one of those things that are obvious when you see it'."

Android's founder Rubin was similarly quoted as responding, "Holy crap, I guess we're not going to ship that phone," a reference to the BlackBerry-like Android phone prototype Google was gearing up to release. Instead, the company had to return to the drawing board and develop a new device with Windows Mobile hardware developer HTC, which became the HTC Dream, also branded as T-Mobile G1.

Android iPhone


But in order to ship Android as an iPhone copy rather than a BlackBerry copy, Google had to retool its entire definition of Android. As detailed in the post iPhone version of the Android planning document, version 99.3 and dated November 2007, that meant dumping compatibility with Sun's Java and building a Java-like runtime named Dalvik that Google could freely take in its own direction, much the same way that Microsoft had modified Java on Windows back in the late 1990s in order to wrest platform control from Sun.

Android iPhone


The change log of the planning document conveys the rapid change that occured in April, when suddenly there was a "major update." Among the changes were section 3.11.2 Touchscreen, which now read, "a touch screen for finger-based navigation--including multitouch capabilities--is required. Stylus-based navigation is not supported."

Android iPhone


Rubin didn't just look to Jobs's iPhone unveiling for inspiration on the entire new application architecture and user interface of Android; it also colored everything about how the platform would work, from rich email to "real" web browsing. The "TK" web browser section was replaced with "The Platform will include a fully featured web browser based on the WebKit Open Source Project."Rubin didn't just take Apple's phone, he also took the touchscreen iPod and the breakthrough Internet device.

Android could also now flesh out its "multimedia" section, now called "Media Player," which now read "the Product will support a Media Player capable of managing, importing and playing back content encoded in various forms," including specifications essentially identical to Apple's iPod app for iPhone.

Rubin didn't just take Apple's phone, he also took the touchscreen iPod and the breakthrough Internet device.

Android iPhone clone


Google announced Android as a project that same month, but the HTC Dream/G1 wasn't launched until October 2008, a year later. When it was released, Android still lacked support for touchscreen typing by finger. And while the phone shipped with hardware support for multitouch, its software was patched to remove support for the feature. In late 2009, Google released Android 2.0, adding software support for multitouch.

Without being directly sued by Apple, Google has since cautiously incorporated a series of other iPhone patented features into Android, including support for Slide to Unlock and Data Detectors.
post #2 of 168
Daniel,

Are you the only one who can see this blatant theft, or is the rest of the world blind ??
post #3 of 168

Good article!

 

If the iPhone hadn't come along, then many phones would still look like blackberry clones even to this day, including Google's phones. People wouldn't be playing Candy Crush on their way to work. People wouldn't be surfing the full web on their phones. Fandroids would be typing on their hardware phone keyboards and thinking that they're oh so cool and oh so advanced, using devices that are at the pinnacle of technological innovation, while they navigate around the screen using a damn cursor in 2014.

 

When Steve Jobs stood on stage and said that the iPhone was five years ahead of anything else, he was pretty accurate in his prediction. Everybody else has been scrambling to catch up ever since. 

 

I basically see every single touch screen phone that is on the market as being a cheap imitation of the iPhone. And unsurprisingly, it's also usually cheap people who opt for the cheap imitations.

post #4 of 168
1) reading that transcript from the 1/9/2007 keynote gives me shivers down my spine. Again. Which I think is odd; it's 'merely tech', right?

2) LOL:

I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #5 of 168

Here is another victim of Android's shift, it became vapourware ready to go but never shipped, an Australian company not far behind HTC.

 


Edited by hill60 - 4/14/14 at 2:43am
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 #6 of 168
Philboogie, I get a shiver too - such an amazing keynote speech!
post #7 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by prokip View Post

Daniel,

Are you the only one who can see this blatant theft, or is the rest of the world blind ??

There's good reason to the fundamental principle that there is no (legal) ownership to ideas. I know the US patent system has its difficulties with this principle because it makes it far too easy to overcome, creating a whole industry of patent trolls and legal abuse.

But every time I read how Apple stole an idea from Android, or Google from Apple, of X from Y, and how one copied the other, I am getting sick. All progress comes from copying, even what makes mankind unique compared to all other animals is our ability to copy and learn something new from it (I know, some other species have a similar, but reduced ability to do so too).

So all please get over the conception that using ("copying") and improving upon other people's / companies' ideas is evil.

post #8 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philotech View Post
 

There's good reason to the fundamental principle that there is no (legal) ownership to ideas. I know the US patent system has its difficulties with this principle because it makes it far too easy to overcome, creating a whole industry of patent trolls and legal abuse.

But every time I read how Apple stole an idea from Android, or Google from Apple, of X from Y, and how one copied the other, I am getting sick. All progress comes from copying, even what makes mankind unique compared to all other animals is our ability to copy and learn something new from it (I know, some other species have a similar, but reduced ability to do so too).

So all please get over the conception that using ("copying") and improving upon other people's / companies' ideas is evil.

 

Hey Philotech,

 

I am also a technophile (it's Greek no?) but also a lawyer.  I philo (love) IP law and know more about it than I should. Of course we develop ideas on top of other ideas, but we have laws in our anglophile culture that says someone who comes up with an idea first, who spends lotsa time and lotsa money has the protection of the fair society in which we live to stop that idea from being blatantly copied for gain by others for at least a period of time, in my jurisdiction usually 20 years.

 

And if you getting 'sick' of all this copying hokum there is probably a patented pharmaceutical substance (sometimes more than 20 years protection) to help you.

 

As for patent trolls, don't get me started, there is no doubt a special place for them in Hades, but we should not now start a discourse on religion.

post #9 of 168
Good jog google. Reason why android is what it us today. Saw a shift in the industry and followed it. Didn't sit in their hands like Microsoft.

I have a question though why have these patents only have had success in the United States, And why was apple only able to get most of these patents in the U.S and not say the EU or Japan etc..?

Is it because there is something inherently wrong with patenting, data detection links, or patenting being able to search you phone locally? Or patenting every aspect of sliding you phone to unlock (the original patent use to say slide of unlock along a define path, but apple eventually got the patent of sliding anywhere at any point to unlock patented by filling for it something like 7-8 times before they worded it right and got the patent expanded).
post #10 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by prokip View Post

Hey Philotech,

I am also a technophile (it's Greek no?) but also a lawyer.  I philo (love) IP law and know more about it than I should. Of course we develop ideas on top of other ideas, but we have laws in our anglophile culture that says someone who comes up with an idea first, who spends lotsa time and lotsa money has the protection of the fair society in which we live to stop that idea from being blatantly copied for gain by others for at least a period of time, in my jurisdiction usually 20 years.

And if you getting 'sick' of all this copying hokum there is probably a patented pharmaceutical substance (sometimes more than 20 years protection) to help you.

As for patent trolls, don't get me started, there is no doubt a special place for them in Hades, but we should not now start a discourse on religion.

Nicely said. For a lawyer you aren't all that bad 1wink.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #11 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by prokip View Post
 

 

Hey Philotech,

 

I am also a technophile (it's Greek no?) but also a lawyer.  I philo (love) IP law and know more about it than I should. Of course we develop ideas on top of other ideas, but we have laws in our anglophile culture that says someone who comes up with an idea first, who spends lotsa time and lotsa money has the protection of the fair society in which we live to stop that idea from being blatantly copied for gain by others for at least a period of time, in my jurisdiction usually 20 years.

 

And if you getting 'sick' of all this copying hokum there is probably a patented pharmaceutical substance (sometimes more than 20 years protection) to help you.

 

As for patent trolls, don't get me started, there is no doubt a special place for them in Hades, but we should not now start a discourse on religion.

Good decyphyering of my nick :) and I'm also (apart from being a technophile) a lawyer, albeit no patent lawyer.

 

I may not know all that much about patent law, but I think your abstract may be a little too short... even in the anglophile culture, at least by legal principle, it's not the ideas that are (should be) protected. The issues are that (i) it's too easy to claim that the patent does not cover the idea / abstract, but a technical application of it, and (ii) prior art seems to be the only relevant counterclaim against the validity of a patent rather than it requiring a minimum amount of threshold of originality (Schöpfungshöhe in German - there isn't even a widely used English technical term for it I think).

 

So not the idea of a phone without a keyboard is protected, but only the technical method of detecting the touch of a finger could be. But the US patent law system even has difficulties explaining that the concept of subtracting currency amounts from each other and making a balance cannot be patented once someone comes up and draws a graph showing that this is done by a computer in software.

post #12 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukjb View Post

prokip,

You are correct, there are IP laws that prevent some forms of blatant copying. but full touch screen is not covered in that context... not to mention seeing article after article after article about android stealing apple's ideas (this is what? article number 1278 since 2007), is just distasteful. not only is it counterproductive, but if any of the apple exces or the die hard apple fans truly think android owes anything to apple for "copying" the full touch screen capability... then perhaps apple owes a portion of its revenue to LG since they came out with the full touch screen prada in advance of the first iphone announcement. i'm sure someone over at LG could come up with pretty little timelines showing how their phone design inspired the iphone. but no one gives a crap about any of this except the blowhards at apple. just food for thought.

Talk about over simplification! Of course there were 'touch screen's long before iPhone, that is hardly the point. The 'no ones' that don't give a crap are presumably Apple haters. Everyone I know especially Apple share holders and many Apple product users that follow the tech news certainly do care.

Try studying all the smart phones pre iPhone, read what Google's plans were to have been and so on. Then look at the earth shattering effect iPhone had on the industry. Then look at all the smart phones after iPhone. Maybe not to you, but to me, the 'obvious' way to use a touch screen, in the way iOS did back then, seems to have evaded everyone but Steve Jobs.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #13 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post
...
I have a question though why have these patents only have had success in the United States, And why was apple only able to get most of these patents in the U.S and not say the EU or Japan etc..?
...

Don't even get me started on this one... It's because in the US you can get a patent for everything if you must make up a story around it so it appears to be more than just trivia or an idea or business method.

You can be granted a patent for using a software program for subtracting, for using mouse clicks to buy, for scanning, placing ads, just everything. You may take any concept from the real, physical world and make a patentable technical application from it by just adding the words "by using a computer-based algorithm".

post #14 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philotech View Post
 

Good decyphyering of my nick :) and I'm also (apart from being a technophile) a lawyer, albeit no patent lawyer.

 

I may not know all that much about patent law, but I think your abstract may be a little too short... even in the anglophile culture, at least by legal principle, it's not the ideas that are (should be) protected. The issues are that (i) it's too easy to claim that the patent does not cover the idea / abstract, but a technical application of it, and (ii) prior art seems to be the only relevant counterclaim against the validity of a patent rather than it requiring a minimum amount of threshold of originality (Schöpfungshöhe in German - there isn't even a widely used English technical term for it I think).

 

So not the idea of a phone without a keyboard is protected, but only the technical method of detecting the touch of a finger could be. But the US patent law system even has difficulties explaining that the concept of subtracting currency amounts from each other and making a balance cannot be patented once someone comes up and draws a graph showing that this is done by a computer in software.

Philo,

 

Very good response.  I won't waste your time and our dear fellow readers with a wise cracking retort.  Also my 'nick' is Procopios.  Look that up.  (My german isn't too bad either.)

 

But we are all Apple fan boys in one way or the other, at least if we use their products.  And after years of using just about every other 'smart' phone out there, including the first non-smart bricks of yesteryear,  I am particularly grateful for the device that currently resides in my pocket most days.

post #15 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


Talk about over simplification! Of course there were 'touch screen's long before iPhone, that is hardly the point. The 'no ones' that don't give a crap are presumably Apple haters. Everyone I know especially Apple share holders and many Apple product users that follow the tech news certainly do care.

Try studying all the smart phones pre iPhone, read what Google's plans were to have been and so on. Then look at the earth shattering effect iPhone had on the industry. Then look at all the smart phones after iPhone. Maybe not to you, but to me, the 'obvious' way to use a touch screen, in the way iOS did back then, seems to have evaded everyone but Steve Jobs.

Getting sick again... Of course this invention of the iPhone using a full-screen phone with no keyboard was a great idea. Maybe there were phones (existing or under construction) before it, but totally obviously it was only Apple who made this concept fashionable and provied that it was a viable concept of a phone.

But still, this is an IDEA, and alleging that such an idea can be "stolen" (in a legal rather than just business ethics sense) has got it WRONG!

post #16 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukjb View Post

then perhaps apple owes a portion of its revenue to LG since they came out with the full touch screen prada in advance of the first iphone announcement. i'm sure someone over at LG could come up with pretty little timelines showing how their phone design inspired the iphone.

While the LG Prada and the Apple iPhone were being developed during roughly the same time period... does anyone really think that Apple got the idea of using a capacitive touchscreen from LG?

I think it's more of a coincidence than anything.

What's the theory... that Apple was developing a QWERTY phone all along... but they had spies over at the LG headquarters in South Korea and learned about the capacitive touchscreen?

No... I don't think it was corporate espionage.

So what's another theory? The LG Prada was shown publicly in September 2006... maybe that's where Apple got the idea for a capacitive touchscreen phone.

Would that have been enough time for Apple to get the idea for a capacitive touchscreen from LG and have a working model to announce just 4 months later?

That's an even crazier theory.

I never understood the premise that the LG Prada had ANYTHING to do with the development of the iPhone. But people keep bringing it up.
post #17 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philotech View Post
 

Good decyphyering of my nick :) and I'm also (apart from being a technophile) a lawyer, albeit no patent lawyer.

 

I may not know all that much about patent law, but I think your abstract may be a little too short... even in the anglophile culture, at least by legal principle, it's not the ideas that are (should be) protected. The issues are that (i) it's too easy to claim that the patent does not cover the idea / abstract, but a technical application of it, and (ii) prior art seems to be the only relevant counterclaim against the validity of a patent rather than it requiring a minimum amount of threshold of originality (Schöpfungshöhe in German - there isn't even a widely used English technical term for it I think).

 

So not the idea of a phone without a keyboard is protected, but only the technical method of detecting the touch of a finger could be. But the US patent law system even has difficulties explaining that the concept of subtracting currency amounts from each other and making a balance cannot be patented once someone comes up and draws a graph showing that this is done by a computer in software.


If you are who you say your are a lawyer scan your degree and put it up here if you don't then we know you are lying!!!!!

post #18 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukjb View Post

prokip,

You are correct, there are IP laws that prevent some forms of blatant copying. but full touch screen is not covered in that context... not to mention seeing article after article after article about android stealing apple's ideas (this is what? article number 1278 since 2007), is just distasteful. not only is it counterproductive, but if any of the apple exces or the die hard apple fans truly think android owes anything to apple for "copying" the full touch screen capability... then perhaps apple owes a portion of its revenue to LG since they came out with the full touch screen prada in advance of the first iphone announcement. i'm sure someone over at LG could come up with pretty little timelines showing how their phone design inspired the iphone. but no one gives a crap about any of this except the blowhards at apple. just food for thought.

 

The Prada wasn't "full touch screen", it had three buttons, call end and send and a home button, it also wasn't multitouch.

 

Apple was working on the iPhone years before the Prada was launched or do you think Apple "magic pixie dust" made it possible to come up with the iPhone in a matter of weeks?

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 #19 of 168
So, Google is guilty by being sososo fxxking creative in the art of copying
post #20 of 168
What happens if we get a 5" iPhone from Apple this fall? Or how about actionable notifications, better inter-app communications, 3rd party support for Siri and Touch ID? Won't the anti-Apple crowd claim Apple is lifting that from the competition?
post #21 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The Prada wasn't "full touch screen", it had three buttons, call end and send and a home button, it also wasn't multitouch.

Apple was working on the iPhone years before the Prada was launched or do you think Apple "magic pixie dust" made it possible to come up with the iPhone in a matter of weeks?
Apparently it's Samsung that has the magic pixie dust. lol.gif

Anyway I think some of these copying claims are a little ridiculous. Especially the ones that claim Samsung is copying something Apple doesn't even make. What we know about Samsung is they throw tons of shit against the wall to see what sticks. And while in one sense they're the perfect example of a "fast follower" they also are obsessed with bringing things to market before they're ready for prime time so they can claim "first!" before Apple, Google, etc. we know that was the case with their smartwatch as less than 6 months before it was released there was a new generation and it was running different software.
Edited by Rogifan - 4/14/14 at 5:24am
post #22 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by prokip View Post
 

Philo,

 

Very good response.  I won't waste your time and our dear fellow readers with a wise cracking retort.  Also my 'nick' is Procopios.  Look that up.  (My german isn't too bad either.)

 

But we are all Apple fan boys in one way or the other, at least if we use their products.  And after years of using just about every other 'smart' phone out there, including the first non-smart bricks of yesteryear,  I am particularly grateful for the device that currently resides in my pocket most days.

I did, but that leaves a few that it could refer to, even after ruling our Red Dick, the Californian bandit. Seeing you argue here, it may refer to the sophist Procopios of Gaza, but Procopius of Ceasarea would not be too far-fetched either.

Oh yes, and I do love my Apple products, but also have an Android phone (no iPhone) and I'm heavily invested in the Google eco system. So no preoccupation either way.

post #23 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philotech View Post
 

Don't even get me started on this one... It's because in the US you can get a patent for everything if you must make up a story around it so it appears to be more than just trivia or an idea or business method.

You can be granted a patent for using a software program for subtracting, for using mouse clicks to buy, for scanning, placing ads, just everything. You may take any concept from the real, physical world and make a patentable technical application from it by just adding the words "by using a computer-based algorithm".

 

Yeah, because Europe doesn't allow stupid patents. :)

 

Oops, just infringed.

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 #24 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philotech View Post
 

Good decyphyering of my nick :) and I'm also (apart from being a technophile) a lawyer, albeit no patent lawyer.

...

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mwhiteco View Post
 


If you are who you say your are a lawyer scan your degree and put it up here if you don't then we know you are lying!!!!!

???

Trolling? The lawyer statement is rather irrelevant in this context, and I don't care the slightest if you believe me or not.

post #25 of 168
While everyone talks about how they copied- ill say- wouldn't you have?

Blackberry didn't. Android did. Who's smarter?
Edited by Andysol - 4/14/14 at 5:34am

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #26 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

Yeah, because Europe doesn't allow stupid patents. :)

 

Oops, just infringed.

Yeah, should have added a disclaimer to my posts admitting that similar stupidities happen in Europe too these days... makes me cry...

post #27 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwhiteco View Post


If you are who you say your are a lawyer scan your degree and put it up here if you don't then we know you are lying!!!!!
To prove you're not a bot could you scan your drivers license and post it here please? 1rolleyes.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #28 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


To prove you're not a bot could you scan your drivers license and post it here please? 1rolleyes.gif


I am not a bot but I think you are  for Samscrum:lol: the guy said he was a lawyer and I think he is full of s***

post #29 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philotech View Post

Getting sick again... Of course this invention of the iPhone using a full-screen phone with no keyboard was a great idea. Maybe there were phones (existing or under construction) before it, but totally obviously it was only Apple who made this concept fashionable and provied that it was a viable concept of a phone.
But still, this is an IDEA, and alleging that such an idea can be "stolen" (in a legal rather than just business ethics sense) has got it WRONG!

It happens quite a lot in tech. Did you scream bloody murder when TV manufacturers copied Philips flat panel, and wide-screen format? I could make up a slide showing TVs before Philips and after. Was it WRONG for everyone to copy that idea? There's always going to be a leader, and then followers in a paradigm shift. In this case it was Apple, but it's all happened before, and will continue to do so.
"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 #30 of 168
Wasn't googles original patent just for the idea of ranking based on link popularity?
post #31 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by CustomTB View Post

Wasn't googles original patent just for the idea of ranking based on link popularity?

This is the patent and it's claims:
https://www.google.com/patents/US6285999
In any event it's not Google's patent nor is it an exclusive license to them alone. Apple is free to negotiate a license from Stanford as is Microsoft or anyone else for that matter. In addition it's not any particular patent that led to Google's success. It was Larry Page and Sergey Brin's studied understanding of search, what people want to know, how to implement solutions to meet those wants, and how to find the revenue to pay for it. They weren't the first to market, but like Apple just became the best. It didn't happen by accident or due to some patent anymore than Apple's success depends on a patent.

Personally I don't think something like that should have been patent-worthy anyway but that's another topic I've been consistent on.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/14/14 at 6:22am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #32 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

While everyone talks about how they copied- ill say- wouldn't you have?

Blackberry didn't. Android did. Who's smarter?

Exactly. Genius isn't always recognized immediately. Google was at least smart enough to realize the future of smartphones when they saw it. Those that reacted too slow are dead or dying.

While Samsung is the only successful Android manufacturer the others are at least surviving, and that gives them a fighting chance to turn things around. Whereas BB is dying a slow death, and unless there's some sort of smartphone zombie apocalypse Palm isn't coming back.
"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 #33 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


It happens quite a lot in tech. Did you scream bloody murder when TV manufacturers copied Philips flat panel, and wide-screen format? I could make up a slide showing TVs before Philips and after. Was it WRONG for everyone to copy that idea? There's always going to be a leader, and then followers in a paradigm shift. In this case it was Apple, but it's all happened before, and will continue to do so.


The flat screen TV is actually a very good analogy and you're right. The iPhone was an evolution (in some points, a step backwards in other areas) in the smartphone market. This evolution ended up becoming hugely popular so of course it will be picked up by others. But does that mean that Apple is the only one who can make a mulittouch capacitive display smartphone? Other examples, because iRobot made the first Roomba does that mean no other manufacturers can enter that market? And so on...

When it comes to Android, anyone who has actually used Android (and I mean vanilla Android not Touchwiz), and definitely the early versions, will know that Android is anything but a direct iOS copy. So because Apple made a touchscreen OS no one else can anymore? Touchwiz on the other hand was clearly meant to be as much a iOS look-a-like as possible.

post #34 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by prokip View Post

Daniel,

Are you the only one who can see this blatant theft, or is the rest of the world blind ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip 
I never understood the premise that the LG Prada had ANYTHING to do with the development of the iPhone. But people keep bringing it up.

The reason people want to try and revise history is that it hurts them too much to acknowledge Apple as the innovator behind the devices they currently use. No matter the facts that come to light, there's a bubble that people live in and they cycle the same phrases out every time. Their perception is that Apple just lucked into using a capacitive multi-touch display first along with all the supporting gestures and the LG Prada was evidence that phones would have ended up the same way without them. The LG Prada was a decent attempt at a touch phone vs what was available but it used some Flash UI operating system (Flash layered on top of Symbian or something) and the touch screen wasn't responsive. One of the big things the iPhone did was make the internet finally usable on the go, the Prada wasn't even close:

http://www.gsmarena.com/lg_ke850_prada-review-145p4.php

"The web browser that the Prada phone is equipped with offers some really basic features but it's able to open full HTML pages. It doesn't feature zoom and landscape mode. When browsing web pages the touchscreen functionality doesn't work over the pages themselves and you have to use the arrows in the bottom of the screen for navigation. As you can see from the screenshot, only half of the screen is actually used to display the web page."

It was announced on the 12th December 2006, the iPhone was announced January 9th 2007 and a working model was shown off. The Prada didn't ship until May 2007 so we don't know what software functionality it had before.

People take the approach of 'anything but Apple' too. LG and Samsung are competitors but people who own a Samsung are happy to acknowledge LG as the innovator behind what they have in their Samsung, just as long as it's not Apple. It can be Microsoft, Blackberry, Palm, HP, anyone but Apple.

I think a large part of it comes down to price. Apple doesn't play the game of low margins like everyone else and I think that annoys consumers - there's always a price barrier. The Mac didn't help as it was expensive, incompatible, geared towards creatives and for 2 decades, IT guys have hated on Apple. The iPod fell into the hate cycle first - there had been MP3 players before, they said there was nothing special about the iPod, too expensive etc but it gained mass adoption and so there was some acknowledgement of a shift there. The iPhone fell into the same cycle but there had only been this LG Prada replacing buttons entirely with touch to phones and it came out around the same time so the only way to go here is to revise history and minimize the achievement, same with the iPad.

The more that time goes on, the hope is that people will simply forget what happened and Apple won't get the credit for it. They cling to '80% marketshare' (misconstruing recent quarterly marketshare with overall marketshare) as if it somehow takes away Apple's relevance.

What I'd rather see as an outcome of the lawsuits is not any financial exchange but for Google to be forced to put a message somewhere inside Android that says 'inspired by Apple' and it would be somewhere Android users would have to see it frequently.
post #35 of 168

I remember a moment from last year's Apple vs Samsung when the judge held up an iPad and a Galaxy tab(?) and asked the Samsung lawyers if they could tell which tablet was their client's. They responded that they could not. There is a point to designing a product that takes inspiration from another but a line is crossed when your product is a direct copy or close enough to blur any distinction between the two in regards to consumers. When an artist creates a fake Andy Warhol image by offsetting colors over a photograph image it is not necessarily a copy unless that image was used by Warhol such as the iconic Marylyn Monroe image. Samsung for all purposes has copied Monroe's image and stuck a Samsung label on it. 

post #36 of 168
I am a Doctor, Lawyer, and Indian Chief
besides being pope.

Let me see now
Where did the iPod,iPhone,iPad
Products that generated billions of dollars of trade
Shoot, copies of these items generate billions of dollars in trade
come from?

Europe - land of the freetards
Or
USA - land where the daring innovator gets protection for a short period of time
(as stipulated in the Constitution)
?

Times up.
Pencils down!
post #37 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Exactly. Genius isn't always recognized immediately. Google was at least smart enough to realize the future of smartphones when they saw it. Those that reacted too slow are dead or dying.

While Samsung is the only successful Android manufacturer the others are at least surviving, and that gives them a fighting chance to turn things around. Whereas BB is dying a slow death, and unless there's some sort of smartphone zombie apocalypse Palm isn't coming back.

I've made a similar argument before (not a popular thing to say here 1hmm.gif). If the penalty in business for stealing Apple's tech is a potential slap on the wrist then, from a business standpoint, Samsung made the best choice and others made some of the worst choices. We can say that Samsung has no ethics and assume others did but all we really know is that Samsung is to the Android-based market as Apple is to the handset market. Right or wrong they are kicking everyone else's ass who sells an Android-based devices.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

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

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

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

Reply
post #38 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwhiteco View Post

If you are who you say your are a lawyer scan your degree and put it up here if you don't then we know you are lying!!!!!

-1
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #39 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

One of the big things the iPhone did was make the internet finally usable on the go, the Prada wasn't even close:

http://www.gsmarena.com/lg_ke850_prada-review-145p4.php

Thanks for that link. That phone had one fugly interface:

I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #40 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryb View Post
 

I remember a moment from last year's Apple vs Samsung when the judge held up an iPad and a Galaxy tab(?) and asked the Samsung lawyers if they could tell which tablet was their client's. They responded that they could not. There is a point to designing a product that takes inspiration from another but a line is crossed when your product is a direct copy or close enough to blur any distinction between the two in regards to consumers. When an artist creates a fake Andy Warhol image by offsetting colors over a photograph image it is not necessarily a copy unless that image was used by Warhol such as the iconic Marylyn Monroe image. Samsung for all purposes has copied Monroe's image and stuck a Samsung label on it. 


So by your definition vanilla Android (not Touchwiz which was a clear attempt to copy) is not a copy but took some inspiration.

Btw still find it strange that the lawyers couldn't see the difference, it has a Samsung logo on it :s. Oh well not the first Samsung cock-up ;).

edit: typo


Edited by Chipsy - 4/14/14 at 7:03am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Android docs reveal before iPhone, Google's plan was a Java button phone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Android docs reveal before iPhone, Google's plan was a Java button phone