or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple and Google agree to drop all ongoing lawsuits, will work toward patent reform
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple and Google agree to drop all ongoing lawsuits, will work toward patent reform - Page 2

post #41 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So why did Apple cave?

That's the real question, is it?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #42 of 136

According to Gatorguy there are no suits directly between the two companies.

 

Motorola was supposed to be an independent separate entity.

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 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirLance99 View Post

Because Apple is the only company in the world to come up with revolutionary products. Um, no. They have before but so has other companies.

 

Are you talking and replying to yourself?, because I've never claimed that Apple is the only company in the world to come up with revolutionary products, though Apple has come up with more such products than most other companies.

post #44 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

It's interesting to watch opinions split down the middle. Google fans have consistently posted "concern" for Apple's alleged lack of innovation supposedly because Apple was spending it's money litigating ("innovate don't litigate" meme). These are the same people who are most excited over this news, NOT because they ever claimed the litigation prevented Google from innovating, but because (they claimed) it prevented Apple from innovating. But why would they care about Apple's self-destruction when they hate Apple products? Because they want Apple to create the next big thing for Google and their "partners" to copy. If that were not true, then all the handwringing "concern" expressed about Apple's lack of competitiveness was feigned, which is the very definition of concern trolling.

 

You're projecting your extremist views onto others.  Most Google fans (myself included) don't hate Apple or their products.  Just like most Apple fans don't hate Google or their products.  It's actually a small, vocal minority of people that fall into those extreme categories.

post #45 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

These are the same people who are most excited over this news

 

Of course they are. Now, let's get to work on reforming this whole "broken" patent system. Many of Apple's patents are ridiculous and should not have been granted in the first place. Slide to unlock? Rounded corners? Rubberbanding? What a joke! And did you know that Apple copied the iPhone from LG's Prada? 

 

That wasn't me talking by the way. I was impersonating a random Fandroid.


Edited by Apple ][ - 5/16/14 at 8:01pm
post #46 of 136
Ha, what now to all those who claimed Apple would go for Google after they were done with Samsung. If anything though this makes Samsung look bad. They probably didn't settle on purpose because they wanted Apple to have to take them to court.
post #47 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

That's the real question, is it?
Because Cook thinks Apple has better use of its time and money?
post #48 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Of course they are. Now, let's get to work on reforming this whole "broken" patent system. Many of Apple's patents are ridiculous and should not have been granted in the first place. Slide to unlock? Rounded corners? Rubberbanding? What a joke! And did you know that Apple copied the iPhone from LG's Prada? 

That wasn't me talking by the way. I was impersonating a random Fandroid.

The primary obstacle to a settlement on reasonable terms is not that Apple is obsessed with patent litigation. It's a strategic dilemma coupled with Apple's apparent inability to understand just how weak its patents -- at least the ones it has asserted in courts around the globe so far -- really are.

The strategic dilemma is that Apple's pricing and product strategy (including the way it restricts end users' freedom) is a great one if you want to occupy a lucrative niche, but it's not a strategy for having the market-leading platform -- in that regard I agree with Colin Gibbs, who expressed doubts about the sustainability of Apple's market capitalization. In network effects-driven markets, market leaders often build so much momentum behind their platforms that the collective innovative capacity of an ecosystem makes the most popular platform also the best one from an end user's perspective -- in which case even a premium-priced niche is in danger in the long run. Apple has, however, become used to having everything: high prices, high margins, huge profits, huge sales, and rapid growth (at least until not so long ago). This was possible because it revolutionized more than one market and virtually created a whole new market. It's just not possible when commoditization occurs. This is a law of nature, like gravity.

So Apple would like intellectual property to be an entrance barrier, at least to the extent that its products are truly different. You can't be different in functional -- only visual -- terms if everyone else is able to deliver the same functionality. On the design patent side, it's pretty much "mission accomplished": as a result of Apple's relentless enforcement, competitors don't dare to build iPhone or iPad lookalikes. But in functional terms, many hundreds of millions of dollars had to be wasted by Apple and the companies it sued on legal fees only to find out that, so far, Apple owns nothing besides rubberbanding.
post #49 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

According to Gatorguy there are no suits directly between the two companies.

Motorola was supposed to be an independent separate entity.

...and that's absolutely correct. Google initiated no lawsuits against Apple nor did Apple start any against Google (tho Rockstar activities might be questionable) I've also often said it would be a nice gesture on Google's part to direct Motorola Mobility to drop the litigation, tho it would be a pretty difficult and unlikely decision to make if Apple wouldn't reciprocate. Well here we go, both folded..

You've said several times Google should just tell MM to drop the lawsuits. Now they have. You should be happy. Without Apple's participation it probably wouldn't have happened.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #50 of 136

Thermonuclear War inverted:

 

Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
post #51 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post
 

Quick unrelated Q, but I simply must know. Why exactly do you think it's a great idea to have your setup and specs in your signature? How is it relevant, and how exactly do you think cares how much ram, clockspeed, harddrive space, videocard, etc your mac mini has- especially when it's something completely average? It just creates wasted space, extra noise, and extra scrolling on the forums. I can't stand signatures to begin with (there's nothing important or witty enough to have as a PERMANENT part of every single one of your posts) but spec signatures? Those I understand least of all. At least a statement can convey a giggle, inspiration, or a philosopy. What exactly is the purpose of your signature?

 

I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious as to your thought process- and others like you. 

 

;)

Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
post #52 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharmkid02 View Post

Absolutely not! Google is a one trick pony (search). Apple will have too much to loose

Not as much as the education system
post #53 of 136

Apple should offer an explanation as to why they decided to take this step, because this seems to be a complete turnaround from what Tim Cook was saying in 2012. I'm sure that somebody will ask him about it in some future interview. The timing is also suspicious, because usually it's shady politicians and bad governments who like to drop news on a Friday evening.

 

Motorola Mobility sued Apple first, and they were trying to use FRAND patents against Apple.

 

I wonder what kind of totally unexpected Apple news will happen next week? Nobody expected this Apple-Google news and nobody expected the rumored Beats deal. Are Apple and Samsung going to kiss and make up next week? I would not be a happy camper if that were to happen.

 

I like surprises and all, but I'm not so sure if I like what's happened this past week, on multiple fronts.

post #54 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/179735/apple-and-google-agree-to-drop-all-ongoing-lawsuits-will-work-toward-patent-reform#post_2535334"]
 
Peace treaties are only worth as much as the integrity of both parties signing that agreement.

Does anybody really think that if Apple were to introduce a new revolutionary device, that Google wouldn't be scrambling to copy that device as soon as they could?

What would Apple do then? Stick to the "peace treaty" and pretend like nothing's happened or would they declare war? 

Look at what happened to naive Europe when certain countries signed the Munich agreement. Look at what happened to foolish Russia when they made a pact with Germany. Certain terrorist groups are also known for wanting a peace treaty (when things are going badly for them), but it's merely a ploy to grant a temporary halt in fighting, so that they can regroup and continue on with their main goal, which is the opposite of peace.

I don't believe this will have any effect on future inventions or patents. I could be wrong, but that would be an unusual arrangement especially with no cross-licensing agreement.

Perhaps they got Google to agree to anti-cloning of Apple's IP for dropping the charges. Having Apple's IP coming out of Android would be enough for Apple at this point IMHO. We shall see.
post #55 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post

Nice to see. And if they are able to agree on a cross license that would be even better.

They have reached an agreement about it. "The agreement does not include a cross license".

And I hope they don't cross license.


Edited by Chris_CA - 5/16/14 at 9:31pm
post #56 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Apple should offer an explanation as to why they decided to take this step, because this seems to be a complete turnaround from what Tim Cook was saying in 2012. I'm sure that somebody will ask him about it in some future interview. The timing is also suspicious, because usually it's shady politicians and bad governments who like to drop news on a Friday evening.

Motorola Mobility sued Apple first, and they were trying to use FRAND patents against Apple.

I wonder what kind of totally unexpected Apple news will happen next week? Nobody expected this Apple-Google news and nobody expected the rumored Beats deal. Are Apple and Samsung going to kiss and make up next week? I would not be a happy camper if that were to happen.

I like surprises and all, but I'm not so sure if I like what's happened in the past week, on multiple fronts.
what have these patent wars actually gotten Apple? If anything they just made Samsung way more popular than they should be. None of their devices have been banned and the amount they owe a Apple is essentially pocket change.
post #57 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

what have these patent wars actually gotten Apple? If anything they just made Samsung way more popular than they should be. None of their devices have been banned and the amount they owe a Apple is essentially pocket change.

 

I agree that Samsung has gotten away very cheap, and I did recently say in another thread that I guess that crime does pay for these companies that copy Apple, but does this mean that Apple is just giving up and letting the criminals win?

 

I sure hope that that is not the case.

post #58 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

We shall see.

 

Indeed we will.

post #59 of 136

Maybe Apple has something pretty revolutionary in the lab and doesn't feel the costs justify protecting 'old' technology. Some kind of cost/benefit analysis was done and I, too, wonder what they're thinking.

post #60 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post
 

Crap.

 

So Google won.

 

Waiting for Google and Comcast to combine and screw us all.

DOJ would never approve of such a merger.

post #61 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

DOJ would never approve of such a merger.

 

Sure they would. Google and Comcast are in almost no overlapping lines of business (Google's fiber operation is comparatively tiny). 

 

That said, I can't see why Google would be interested in such a merger. (Comcast might be.)

post #62 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

You're projecting your extremist views onto others.  Most Google fans (myself included) don't hate Apple or their products.  Just like most Apple fans don't hate Google or their products.  It's actually a small, vocal minority of people that fall into those extreme categories.

If it weren't for Apple YOU wouldn't exist.
Edited by cali - 5/16/14 at 9:24pm
post #63 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by cali View Post


If it weren't for Apple YOU wouldn't exist.

 

I can't wait to hear the explanation for this little tidbit.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #64 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post
 

 

Sure they would. Google and Comcast are in almost no overlapping lines of business (Google's fiber operation is comparatively tiny). 

 

That said, I can't see why Google would be interested in such a merger. (Comcast might be.)


It's not always about the size of the business. It's a matter of whether the move will lead to over-consolidation of competition. The situation with cable companies in general is one of the more unusual ones. Typically they are leased the rights to a given area in exchange for implementing the necessary infrastructure within that municipality or municipality subsection.

post #65 of 136

Nothing in that legal brief discusses future lawsuits, only current ones.

 

Any fool with one eye can recognize by 2015 half a dozen more lawsuits will be filed, but not with the current legal differences, but with the past 18 months worth of new Patents.

 

For example this one will surely be breached:

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,724,619.PN.&OS=PN/8,724,619&RS=PN/8,724,619

 

Android fans will whine about this one:
 

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,717,381.PN.&OS=PN/8,717,381&RS=PN/8,717,381

 

This one is pure scientific genius:
 

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,717,345.PN.&OS=PN/8,717,345&RS=PN/8,717,345

 

This one took for fucking ever to get patented and will bite several OEMs in the ass:

 

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,718,620.PN.&OS=PN/8,718,620&RS=PN/8,718,620


Edited by mdriftmeyer - 5/16/14 at 10:41pm
post #66 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

This entire AI site is a joke anyways so what difference does it make.

Since you’re beneath it all, I guess the jokes on you(?)

A 'smart troll' would simply state “one of each” in their sig.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Thermonuclear War inverted:


A mushroom that went belly-up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

1wink.gif

Slurpy is the greatest!

Nice signature.
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 #67 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post
 

Nothing in that legal brief discusses future lawsuits, only current ones.

 

Any fool with one eye can recognize by 2015 half a dozen more lawsuits will be filed, but not with the current legal differences, but with the past 18 months worth of new Patents.

 

For example this one will surely be breached:

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,724,619.PN.&OS=PN/8,724,619&RS=PN/8,724,619

 

Android fans will whine about this one:
 

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,717,381.PN.&OS=PN/8,717,381&RS=PN/8,717,381

 

This one is pure scientific genius:
 

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,717,345.PN.&OS=PN/8,717,345&RS=PN/8,717,345

 

This one took for fucking ever to get patented and will bite several OEMs in the ass:

 

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,718,620.PN.&OS=PN/8,718,620&RS=PN/8,718,620

The first patent (the one about routing calls between mobile and voip networks) seems to concern the same functionality that the new Republic Wireless carrier claims to have implemented in-house (http://www.lightreading.com/mobile/carrier-wifi/republic-wireless-revamps-its-wifi-handoff/d/d-id/706570).

post #68 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

They have reached an agreement about it. "The agreement does not include a cross license".
And I hope they don't cross license.
Do people even read anymore? The word 'if' clearly indicates that I know that there isn't a cross license. But doesn't mean it can't ever happen in the future, just because they were unable to agree on that at this moment in time.
post #69 of 136
This should negate a lot of these distracting court cases. I just wish Samsung would stop copying. They are nothing but a bunch of unoriginal charlatans.

In other news, I used an s3 yesterday for about 10 minutes; wow, what a terrible experience. I never knew they were such utter junk! Scrolling wouldn't keep up with your finger, the Chrome browser on it is garbage, and their App Store is riddled with crapware and the search function in the store (Google run store; search company) is beyond terrible. Ran back for a glass of ice-water.
Edited by Ireland - 5/17/14 at 3:17am
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #70 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

I prefer war over peace.

 

I also think that most people who comment on the internet about patent cases and come with the cliched comment and talking point that the whole patent system needs to be reformed, what they really mean is that it should be made even easier for everybody to steal from Apple, as those people don't really view many of Apple's patents as being valid.

"I prefer war over peace." Yeah. You're setting new records every post for abject stupidity. Right on /s

post #71 of 136
Quote:
... the step forward does not impact Apple's ongoing lawsuits with other handset makers that use Google's Android operating system, including Samsung.

 

Good.  Keep hammering the copycats, Apple!

post #72 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Ha, what now to all those who claimed Apple would go for Google after they were done with Samsung. If anything though this makes Samsung look bad. They probably didn't settle on purpose because they wanted Apple to have to take them to court.

 

That can still happen because:-

 

a) this only concerns the Motorola cases

 

and

 

b) there is no cross license agreement.

 

It's still game on for Samsung and Google too if they get drawn into it.

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 #73 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cali View Post


If it weren't for Apple YOU wouldn't exist.

 

I can't wait to hear the explanation for this little tidbit.

Maybe he thinks Apple makes Condoms :-)

post #74 of 136
If Google really wants to extend a hand in good faith to Apple... an olive branch per se... they should send a serious warning in the direction of Samsung to quit duplicating Google's own apps and functions, as well as mimicking other OSes (Apple's and Microsoft's) and Apps (Facebook Frontpage or whatever it's called).... thus diluting Android itself and calling it their own.

If Samsung refuses... drop them from the Handset Alliance and let them create their own Android fork without Google's services; release Tizen; or go back begging at Microsoft's door. See how that goes in the future.

Google "could" make this a fair game to play for it's other OEMs, and at the same time retake their OS from the clutches of Samsung.

One last thing: if I was Google... I would be seriously p***ed if an OEM 1) was so selfish and greedy to rip off a competitor and get us all in to deep water; and then 2) pointed their finger at me in court as a "partner in crime" and ask me to pay for their selfish foolishness by taking it this far!

Suffice it to say... if I was Google I'd surely be more p'ed off at Samsung than Apple at this point in time.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #75 of 136
It's Larry Ellison turn now.
post #76 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

If Google really wants to extend a hand in good faith to Apple... an olive branch per se... they should send a serious warning in the direction of Samsung to quit duplicating Google's own apps and functions...
Suffice it to say... if I was Google I'd surely be more p'ed off at Samsung than Apple at this point in time.

I've never seen any evidence that Google was ever p'ed off at Apple. No threats, no bombastic statements, no saber-rattling of any kind. The worst I can recall is one Google presenter making a "draconian future" comment several years ago for which he was chastised by Google's owners IIRC. That's it. It's obvious from various emails revealed in court cases that Google has tried to appease Apple over the years. They've extended olive branches even when they should not have (ie hiring practices)

As for warning Samsung against "copying" they've done so. That came out in the first Apple/Samsung trial and I personally suspect it's not the only conversation the two have had on the subject. I think the major thing preventing this laying down of arms from happening sooner was Apple holding out on offering that olive branch in return. Hopefully these two companies can agree to fix any future problems between them too without resorting to (semi) public threats or court filings. .
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #77 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


That's the real question, is it?

Maybe because Apple realized that Motorola had already implemented something in their watch technology that Apple needed to be able to copy.

post #78 of 136
Meanwhile, bad actors like Amazon continue to patent prior art. Amazon's latest stunt? Patenting photographs of people and objects with a white background. Apparently no one had ever thought of it before. Who knew? :/
post #79 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjcampbell View Post

Meanwhile, bad actors like Amazon continue to patent prior art. Amazon's latest stunt? Patenting photographs of people and objects with a white background. Apparently no one had ever thought of it before. Who knew? :/

So is it Amazon to be blamed for asking for one or the USPTO for doing so? If the patent office actually does their job properly then claims in Amazon's filing are unique and inventive enough to qualify, Big if. . .
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #80 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcstarheel View Post

Damnit..I wanted them to hit them hard. I truly think they waited too long to go after them. You have to be able to protect your IP. I guess this doesn't mean that lawsuits can't be brought up in the future. But damnit if Google isn't still a thief to end all thieves.

No the thief to end all thieves is still Samsung. Google knew enough to change it enough to not be an outright copy. They even tried to warn Samsung not to copy so closely. Check out Vanity Fair's coverage of Samsung's Coping not just in Smartphone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple and Google agree to drop all ongoing lawsuits, will work toward patent reform