Do you have some knowledge about any judicial system outside of the US?
I'm not sure what your follow up would be, but if it's a comment about how he shouldn't make such a comment without knowing all other judicial systems in the world then I suggest you don't. He didn't say that the US is the best he simply made a comment that he'd rather be on trial in the US. If he's an American who understand the American legal system then that certainly makes sense. I'd choose Amazonia and death by snu-snu, but that's me.
yup, exactly. Nokia fired the first shot, and now it's open season. expect to see a lot more patent suits filed by just about everyone against everyone - all the big boys.
it had to happen. there is no other way to resolve the questions of who - if anyone - holds the genuinely valid patents on whatever. and what cannot be patented at all.
in 4 or 5 years we'll know.
immediate question is what will happen in the meantime. each OEM will perform a secret risk analysis to assess their products' patent infringement vulnerability vs. Apple and others. then they will avoid the highest risk items in future products, using some kind of modifications or work-arounds in their place. we should see the first "adjustments" in upcoming new HTC smartphones this summer or fall.
You're partly wrong. We do need patent reform and, yes, the iPhone was built on the shoulders of other tech. No one has said this is about multitouch. We'll have to wait and see but it has been on Android phones for awhile outside of the US. Chances are these are some patents which no one in this forum can wrap their heads around.
I seriously doubt that Apple is worried about Android or WM. Android is more popular in the press than it is in reality and right now WM is vaporware. The press promotes Android because they want to create a storyline of an iPhone rival.
Unless you are an AAPL shareholder, no one should give a damn. If HTC loses, they will find ways around the patent as companies always do.
It is interesting to note now that Apple is now defending their patents since the Nokia situation.
Several patents are about the implementation of multi-touch gestures.
Just because it's been around awhile outside of the US doesn't mean squat. Apple has likely been preparing this suit for at least 6 months or most likely more. It takes time to investigate exactly what mechanisms are being used to implement certain functions on the phone, and to determine if it's using something that you've patented.
Apple may have decided to go forward with the suit since the Nexus One, but they certainly could not have prepared a lawsuit (in which they expect to win) in less than 60 days. Only simpletons think like that.
Please keep your posts on-topic and remember that there is a human being on the other end of the personal attacks that are being slung around. There are plenty of things to discuss here without getting into childish insults.
I'm going to assume that this is the only warning that grown-ups need and any further childish behaviour is a request by the user perpetrating it for a warning or a ban.
Im an all Apple Shop... I own a MBP, I've owned all 3 iPhones and now Im on a HTC Hero.. I only changed because the iPhone plan was too expensive.. I loved my iPhone..
THIS is just retarded on Apples part. Come on guys, without competition, what would we have? I really hope the FTC steps in and takes control over the situation.. Limiting growth on another corporation just because they sell a phone that functions like yours? I must say that Android and the iPhone are pretty far from the same.. This is just like Apple who keeps the OS closed so se cant FULLY use our equipment that WE pay for.
Sorry, but Apple needs to lose this one..
Sorry, but this is a retarded comment, as most of the patents in question seem to revolve around the hardware implementation to make certain UI or software functions happen; some involving multi-touch. Competition doesn't mean that one company can implement the exact same mechanism/process to generate some user functionality. But many like you need to brush up on patents and patent law.
Now if it was strictly a UI question (i.e., swipe left-to-right), then I'd agree with you that it is retarded, but it doesn't look that way from a quick perusing of the patents.
It's hilarious that all these companies in tech allegedly hold such innovative patents, yet Apple seems to be the one always releasing game-changing products for consumers to use, and are usually the first ones to bring them to market.
Perhaps these also-rans should simply hand over their patents to Apple so they could actually do something with them.
Quadra you are always living in the moment when you talk about Apple always releasing game changing products. In three decades they have at best released two products that have been "game changers". The only real one has been the iPod and the iPhone which isn't even the #1 selling smartphone.
Apple has not been wildly successful for 30 years they have been for maybe the last three years at best. Its not like they have been burning up the tech industry with everyone following for decades. Most of their products can bearly even make a dent in market share and the simple fact is they do well because they have a cult following that is willing to be over charged for hardware.
If we were to list their failed products the list would be alot longer then the game changers.
Lets jump back into reality when it come to how long Apple has truly been successful which by the way can change at anytime as it can with any company. Also note Apple has never put anyone out of business. It took them forever just to shutdown a company like Psystar which was pretty much run out of someones garage. Comparing them shutting down psystar compared to HTC backed by Google is freaking joke.
Some of the things mentioned don't even deserve a patent.
"Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image"
Patents ought be novel and innovative, and yet they seem to have been granted coverage over something that hardly smacks of innovation.
Remember this: the leaking out of ideas (whether patented or not) is good for the whole industry and for consumers as a whole. Ideas want to flow from one company and one product to the next, and with the movement of staff and reverse engineering of products they always do.
Sure patenting allows some healthy capture of initial profits but there is also plenty of ideas that that ought be beyond being captured by one company in perpetuity, and I think this example is one of those.
One cannot patent an idea (at least, that's the way it's supposed to be).
What a company like Apple is patenting is the hardware (and software) mechanism/process underlying the implementation of the idea. There are usually multiple ways to implement an idea, some are more efficient, some are less - but competitors should come up with another way.
For example, you cannot patent the idea of a "latch" or something that locks two or more things together. But you can patent a particular implementation of a latch - perhaps using springs or magnets or something else.
I find it amusing you think everyone in here is idiots and couldn't possibly understand corporations.
I think in fact corporations do have emotions. They are very much like people.
Yes even people will partner with 'competitors' if the end result is to their benifit. How many times have you seen that in history where a country or two people who where enemies joined together for a cause that benifited both of them (or only one, after the other stabbed one in the back).
As for emotions, scared may not be the best word but it does describe what you said. The company did research and is 'afraid' that another company may have a better received product so that company will see what tools it has available (patents) and use them.
And I never said I was an expert, but i'm no fool either. I understand what is going on with this suit. I think Apple needs to be careful as this can be a PR disaster as well, especially if Google or Microsoft join in. In these connected time, everything has potential PR fallouts especially when in save for Blackberry, iPhone is #1 in the US.
Even Engadget has now labeled this as a suit against primarily Android. So I think the general tech consensus is getting quite clear. Also this suit doesn't mention Multitouch. So maybe YOU should get your fact straight.
Edit: Let me also add, that this is an Apple fansite. Where fans (or not) comment on Apple related (and sometimes not) news. Nobody ever said you had to be an expert to comment, as this is not a professional site. I find it amusing that there is always one of you around on the various sites I visit that claims people have no right to comment or have an opinion.
I never said that anyone here had no right to comment - that obviously is untrue given the LARGE number of comments and opinions - of varying degrees of inaccuracy or accuracy. But opinions are just that. These are not statements of fact, which is OK - this is a blog and no one here is required to validate their opinions with defensible facts, just like Engadget weighing in with that particular label is immaterial. Engadget is a tech news and blog site. Theirs is a reputation based on popularity and secondarily accuracy. Fact sites are relatively boring, and with the possible exception of Wikipedia, largely unpopular by web standards. However, when has Engadget EVER, in the course of its existence represented anything approaching a considerable fraction of tech opinion??
What the heck, let's deal directly with your comments to make sure we are on the same page:
I find it amusing that you find your attribution of me thinking everyone here is an idiot amusing. never stated nor implied that, and I think you are being disingenuous by saying you are amused - your statements indicate otherwise. My statement stands as previously written - a deep lack of understanding is not idiocy - uninformed, ignorant perhaps (where extreme) but not idiocy. I happen to respect the opinions expressed in here that have a fairly firm basis in fact, or are otherwise (if not factual) ardently or passionately expressed as a belief, but not presented as fact. That seems to me to reflect decent grasp of reality.
With extensive and long-term experience in corporate life, I completely disagree with your statement that corporations are like people. If you insist, they are so in completely superficial and unimportant ways. So we will have to agree to disagree on that point. I will weigh my education and experience in on this one against yours if push comes to shove and we will have to judge based on that. However no one I know who is involved in enterprise communication, business management or business theory will agree with your statement. There are advanced degrees and post-graduate programs devoted to understanding how corporations and the enterprise work, seems like an awful lot of people have gone to great effort for no purpose if understanding corporations was so easy and commonsense.
You have waxed grandiloquent on things that you have in error attributed to me. And while I appreciate the common-man approach of "awe shucks you all are just one of them puffed up know-it-alls that kills all the fun in our blogs" you are simply wrong in this case. Just because I call out those who insist on building houses of cards on speculation when things get silly, doesn't mean I don't enjoy the silliness or admire the architecture, which is why I'm here. So lighten up a bit Francis.
Quadra you are always living in the moment when you talk about Apple always releasing game changing products. In three decades they have at best released two products that have been "game changers". The only real one has been the iPod and the iPhone which isn't even the #1 selling smartphone.
Apple has not been wildly successful for 30 years they have been for maybe the last three years at best. Its not like they have been burning up the tech industry with everyone following for decades. Most of their products can bearly even make a dent in market share and the simple fact is they do well because they have a cult following that is willing to be over charged for hardware.
If we were to list their failed products the list would be alot longer then the game changers.
Lets jump back into reality when it come to how long Apple has truly been successful which by the way can change at anytime as it can with any company. Also note Apple has never put anyone out of business. It took them forever just to shutdown a company like Psystar which was pretty much run out of someones garage. Comparing them shutting down psystar compared to HTC backed by Google is freaking joke.
Depends on what you mean by "game changer". Most people think it means that it significantly changes the game that was being played by the competitors prior to its arrival. Most people don't think it means "become dominant" or "#1 selling." Sometimes the game-changer can take advantage and become dominant for a long period; sometimes it isn't able to do so (lack of capital, lack of patentable innovations, lack of other market barriers, incompetent management).
The Mac UI was a game changer in user interfaces for computers. Windows OS was a game changer in software licensing. Dell was a game changer in computer assembly and sales. iPod was a game changer in music delivery and consumption. iPhone was a game changer in user interfaces for phones and in phone sales/distribution in the mobile industry (even mobile experts who are Nokia fans agree with that).
Quadra you are always living in the moment when you talk about Apple always releasing game changing products. In three decades they have at best released two products that have been "game changers".
The GUI
Macintosh
The Mouse
iPod
iPod Touch
iPod Nano
iPhone
iTunes
OS X (Microsoft clearly loves it)
App Store
iMacs
and now . . .
The iPad
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
Apple has not been wildly successful for 30 years they have been for maybe the last three years at best.
Try the past decade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
If we were to list their failed products the list would be alot longer then the game changers.
Let's see it. If it's anything like any of the other lists we've seen floating around the internets, Apple's done much better than even I expected.
As with the patents though, it's the details that count.
There is a popular misconception that Apple lost that suit because "you can't patent look and feel" when that isn't the case at all. The suit was "settled" (not "lost"), because Apple could have been construed to have given Microsoft permission to copy them in an agreement Apple signed with Microsoft over technology sharing. They settled out of court because of that, not because "look and feel" lawsuits are inherently un-winable.
If Apple has a patent on the "look and feel" of iPhone interface elements (they do), and valid trademarks on the "look and feel" of the iPhone (they do as of last week), there is nothing to stop them from forcing the copy-cats to stop copying them. In fact it's likely to be a slam dunk.
That being said, they don't appear to be doing that. They are being nice and only suing HTC on specific technologies that were pilfered, and don't seem to care about "look and feel" so far.
You are correct in your Apple vs. MS history.
I think some "look and feel" lawsuits were lost (Lotus vs. MS) which makes people wary of suing. I don't believe Apple patents "look and feel"; they patent the hardware (and software) mechanism/process/technique underlying it. In other words, they do not patent the concept of "pinching" to make something smaller. But they do patent the multi-touch mechanism, consisting of hardware sensors and software interpretation, that they use to sense the pinching and compress the image sent to the display.
Others can implement pinching to make something smaller but they need to use a different mechanism to make it happen.
Apple does file for "design trademarks" which provides protection for a certain look of a device. That look can be hardware size/shape or a software-driven arrangement of an icon(s) on a display, or both.
Why do we have to take advice from guys, like sranger, that don't have a Mac or an iPhone?
Actually I own two macs......
My point is that the suit is more about Apply not wanting to have to compete with a phone like the Nexus One which seem to operate significantly different than the iPhone...
P.S. The look and feel issue was sorted out years ago with the Lotus vs Excel law suits.....
I think that Apple didn't bother going after Palm because Palm was "only" piggybacking onto iTunes, not stealing their products. It really benefitted Apple in a minor way: more iTunes users, more iTunes Store sales. I'm surprised that Apple didn't license an iTunes "key" to Palm for them to use iTunes.
All Apple needed do was tweak iTunes a bit and break the Palm connections. A few hours of programmers' time versus the bottomless money pit of legal action. Sounds like a deal.
Maybe Apple was cutting Jon Rubinstein some slack, too.
Apple might still go after Palm, not for iTunes sync, but for using Apple's techniques in implementing its multi-touch, if Palm actually did so. After all, the Palm Pre only came to market in May 2009, which is way after the HTC Dream (T-Mobile G1) that is mentioned in Apple's suit.
There is more than one way to implement multi-touch in hardware/software, and maybe Palm actually figured out another way to do it. In which case, Apple wouldn't sue.
In reality and not fantasy land (where so many live), it takes time and resources to break down your competitor's products to see what it is that they most likely did.
At least a window GUI and a computer mouse have NOT been invented by Apple
Eventually your argument will break down into "matter can't be destroyed or created so Apple have NOT invented anything." Seriously though, the way the GUI and mouse are implemented and utilized can be patented.
At least a window GUI and a computer mouse have NOT been invented by Apple
Game-changing does not equal invention.
Game-changing is bringing a product to market in such a way that it changes the game. It could include an invention, or a simple modification of someone else's invention, or no invention at all. It could have little to do with the actual product, and instead be a sales, marketing, legal, or business maneuver.
Comments
Do you have some knowledge about any judicial system outside of the US?
I'm not sure what your follow up would be, but if it's a comment about how he shouldn't make such a comment without knowing all other judicial systems in the world then I suggest you don't. He didn't say that the US is the best he simply made a comment that he'd rather be on trial in the US. If he's an American who understand the American legal system then that certainly makes sense. I'd choose Amazonia and death by snu-snu, but that's me.
Everyone's suing everyone these days.
yup, exactly. Nokia fired the first shot, and now it's open season. expect to see a lot more patent suits filed by just about everyone against everyone - all the big boys.
it had to happen. there is no other way to resolve the questions of who - if anyone - holds the genuinely valid patents on whatever. and what cannot be patented at all.
in 4 or 5 years we'll know.
immediate question is what will happen in the meantime. each OEM will perform a secret risk analysis to assess their products' patent infringement vulnerability vs. Apple and others. then they will avoid the highest risk items in future products, using some kind of modifications or work-arounds in their place. we should see the first "adjustments" in upcoming new HTC smartphones this summer or fall.
You're partly wrong. We do need patent reform and, yes, the iPhone was built on the shoulders of other tech. No one has said this is about multitouch. We'll have to wait and see but it has been on Android phones for awhile outside of the US. Chances are these are some patents which no one in this forum can wrap their heads around.
I seriously doubt that Apple is worried about Android or WM. Android is more popular in the press than it is in reality and right now WM is vaporware. The press promotes Android because they want to create a storyline of an iPhone rival.
Unless you are an AAPL shareholder, no one should give a damn. If HTC loses, they will find ways around the patent as companies always do.
It is interesting to note now that Apple is now defending their patents since the Nokia situation.
Several patents are about the implementation of multi-touch gestures.
Just because it's been around awhile outside of the US doesn't mean squat. Apple has likely been preparing this suit for at least 6 months or most likely more. It takes time to investigate exactly what mechanisms are being used to implement certain functions on the phone, and to determine if it's using something that you've patented.
Apple may have decided to go forward with the suit since the Nexus One, but they certainly could not have prepared a lawsuit (in which they expect to win) in less than 60 days. Only simpletons think like that.
Personal attacks, nice!
[CENTER]Personal Attack -
The last resort of those having absolutely no legitimate argument.
(NOTE: Very Common In Here)[/CENTER]
I'm going to assume that this is the only warning that grown-ups need and any further childish behaviour is a request by the user perpetrating it for a warning or a ban.
Thank you!
Im an all Apple Shop... I own a MBP, I've owned all 3 iPhones and now Im on a HTC Hero.. I only changed because the iPhone plan was too expensive.. I loved my iPhone..
THIS is just retarded on Apples part. Come on guys, without competition, what would we have? I really hope the FTC steps in and takes control over the situation.. Limiting growth on another corporation just because they sell a phone that functions like yours? I must say that Android and the iPhone are pretty far from the same.. This is just like Apple who keeps the OS closed so se cant FULLY use our equipment that WE pay for.
Sorry, but Apple needs to lose this one..
Sorry, but this is a retarded comment, as most of the patents in question seem to revolve around the hardware implementation to make certain UI or software functions happen; some involving multi-touch. Competition doesn't mean that one company can implement the exact same mechanism/process to generate some user functionality. But many like you need to brush up on patents and patent law.
Now if it was strictly a UI question (i.e., swipe left-to-right), then I'd agree with you that it is retarded, but it doesn't look that way from a quick perusing of the patents.
It's hilarious that all these companies in tech allegedly hold such innovative patents, yet Apple seems to be the one always releasing game-changing products for consumers to use, and are usually the first ones to bring them to market.
Perhaps these also-rans should simply hand over their patents to Apple so they could actually do something with them.
Quadra you are always living in the moment when you talk about Apple always releasing game changing products. In three decades they have at best released two products that have been "game changers". The only real one has been the iPod and the iPhone which isn't even the #1 selling smartphone.
Apple has not been wildly successful for 30 years they have been for maybe the last three years at best. Its not like they have been burning up the tech industry with everyone following for decades. Most of their products can bearly even make a dent in market share and the simple fact is they do well because they have a cult following that is willing to be over charged for hardware.
If we were to list their failed products the list would be alot longer then the game changers.
Lets jump back into reality when it come to how long Apple has truly been successful which by the way can change at anytime as it can with any company. Also note Apple has never put anyone out of business. It took them forever just to shutdown a company like Psystar which was pretty much run out of someones garage. Comparing them shutting down psystar compared to HTC backed by Google is freaking joke.
Some of the things mentioned don't even deserve a patent.
"Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image"
Patents ought be novel and innovative, and yet they seem to have been granted coverage over something that hardly smacks of innovation.
Remember this: the leaking out of ideas (whether patented or not) is good for the whole industry and for consumers as a whole. Ideas want to flow from one company and one product to the next, and with the movement of staff and reverse engineering of products they always do.
Sure patenting allows some healthy capture of initial profits but there is also plenty of ideas that that ought be beyond being captured by one company in perpetuity, and I think this example is one of those.
One cannot patent an idea (at least, that's the way it's supposed to be).
What a company like Apple is patenting is the hardware (and software) mechanism/process underlying the implementation of the idea. There are usually multiple ways to implement an idea, some are more efficient, some are less - but competitors should come up with another way.
For example, you cannot patent the idea of a "latch" or something that locks two or more things together. But you can patent a particular implementation of a latch - perhaps using springs or magnets or something else.
I find it amusing you think everyone in here is idiots and couldn't possibly understand corporations.
I think in fact corporations do have emotions. They are very much like people.
Yes even people will partner with 'competitors' if the end result is to their benifit. How many times have you seen that in history where a country or two people who where enemies joined together for a cause that benifited both of them (or only one, after the other stabbed one in the back).
As for emotions, scared may not be the best word but it does describe what you said. The company did research and is 'afraid' that another company may have a better received product so that company will see what tools it has available (patents) and use them.
And I never said I was an expert, but i'm no fool either. I understand what is going on with this suit. I think Apple needs to be careful as this can be a PR disaster as well, especially if Google or Microsoft join in. In these connected time, everything has potential PR fallouts especially when in save for Blackberry, iPhone is #1 in the US.
Even Engadget has now labeled this as a suit against primarily Android. So I think the general tech consensus is getting quite clear. Also this suit doesn't mention Multitouch. So maybe YOU should get your fact straight.
Edit: Let me also add, that this is an Apple fansite. Where fans (or not) comment on Apple related (and sometimes not) news. Nobody ever said you had to be an expert to comment, as this is not a professional site. I find it amusing that there is always one of you around on the various sites I visit that claims people have no right to comment or have an opinion.
I never said that anyone here had no right to comment - that obviously is untrue given the LARGE number of comments and opinions - of varying degrees of inaccuracy or accuracy. But opinions are just that. These are not statements of fact, which is OK - this is a blog and no one here is required to validate their opinions with defensible facts, just like Engadget weighing in with that particular label is immaterial. Engadget is a tech news and blog site. Theirs is a reputation based on popularity and secondarily accuracy. Fact sites are relatively boring, and with the possible exception of Wikipedia, largely unpopular by web standards. However, when has Engadget EVER, in the course of its existence represented anything approaching a considerable fraction of tech opinion??
What the heck, let's deal directly with your comments to make sure we are on the same page:
I find it amusing that you find your attribution of me thinking everyone here is an idiot amusing. never stated nor implied that, and I think you are being disingenuous by saying you are amused - your statements indicate otherwise. My statement stands as previously written - a deep lack of understanding is not idiocy - uninformed, ignorant perhaps (where extreme) but not idiocy. I happen to respect the opinions expressed in here that have a fairly firm basis in fact, or are otherwise (if not factual) ardently or passionately expressed as a belief, but not presented as fact. That seems to me to reflect decent grasp of reality.
With extensive and long-term experience in corporate life, I completely disagree with your statement that corporations are like people. If you insist, they are so in completely superficial and unimportant ways. So we will have to agree to disagree on that point. I will weigh my education and experience in on this one against yours if push comes to shove and we will have to judge based on that. However no one I know who is involved in enterprise communication, business management or business theory will agree with your statement. There are advanced degrees and post-graduate programs devoted to understanding how corporations and the enterprise work, seems like an awful lot of people have gone to great effort for no purpose if understanding corporations was so easy and commonsense.
You have waxed grandiloquent on things that you have in error attributed to me. And while I appreciate the common-man approach of "awe shucks you all are just one of them puffed up know-it-alls that kills all the fun in our blogs" you are simply wrong in this case. Just because I call out those who insist on building houses of cards on speculation when things get silly, doesn't mean I don't enjoy the silliness or admire the architecture, which is why I'm here. So lighten up a bit Francis.
One of the first points is patent research.
So I did a short research at www.patents.com. The starting point was this link:
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2...oth-documents/
The patents have been granted between 1995 and 2010 but often were filled years ago.
An example: http://www.patents.com/Unlocking-a-d...7657849/en-US/
Let's look at this example:
- granted February 02 2010
- filed December 23, 2005
- including 47 references to other patents which sometimes include other patent references
It's not so easy to judge the situation when You develop something new.
The common ways to deal with it are:
- modify your product in a way that you can avoid problems
- get a license from the patent holder
- cross license patents
- buy licensed parts
- ignore the patents and save some money for the lawsuit
I don't know why it took so long to get this patent, but even if a patent isn't granted you can do a research and read it.
hard to say if someone can claim "prior art" but if, HTC should have done a research.
From my point of view Apple is no patent troll. They did the research, invented the technique and made a product available for purchase.
Not sure if I'm right at this point, but I think the other facts from this post are valid for those who want to form their personal opinion.
Quadra you are always living in the moment when you talk about Apple always releasing game changing products. In three decades they have at best released two products that have been "game changers". The only real one has been the iPod and the iPhone which isn't even the #1 selling smartphone.
Apple has not been wildly successful for 30 years they have been for maybe the last three years at best. Its not like they have been burning up the tech industry with everyone following for decades. Most of their products can bearly even make a dent in market share and the simple fact is they do well because they have a cult following that is willing to be over charged for hardware.
If we were to list their failed products the list would be alot longer then the game changers.
Lets jump back into reality when it come to how long Apple has truly been successful which by the way can change at anytime as it can with any company. Also note Apple has never put anyone out of business. It took them forever just to shutdown a company like Psystar which was pretty much run out of someones garage. Comparing them shutting down psystar compared to HTC backed by Google is freaking joke.
Depends on what you mean by "game changer". Most people think it means that it significantly changes the game that was being played by the competitors prior to its arrival. Most people don't think it means "become dominant" or "#1 selling." Sometimes the game-changer can take advantage and become dominant for a long period; sometimes it isn't able to do so (lack of capital, lack of patentable innovations, lack of other market barriers, incompetent management).
The Mac UI was a game changer in user interfaces for computers. Windows OS was a game changer in software licensing. Dell was a game changer in computer assembly and sales. iPod was a game changer in music delivery and consumption. iPhone was a game changer in user interfaces for phones and in phone sales/distribution in the mobile industry (even mobile experts who are Nokia fans agree with that).
What the heck is "bearly"?
Quadra you are always living in the moment when you talk about Apple always releasing game changing products. In three decades they have at best released two products that have been "game changers".
The GUI
Macintosh
The Mouse
iPod
iPod Touch
iPod Nano
iPhone
iTunes
OS X (Microsoft clearly loves it)
App Store
iMacs
and now . . .
The iPad
Apple has not been wildly successful for 30 years they have been for maybe the last three years at best.
Try the past decade.
If we were to list their failed products the list would be alot longer then the game changers.
Let's see it. If it's anything like any of the other lists we've seen floating around the internets, Apple's done much better than even I expected.
As with the patents though, it's the details that count.
There is a popular misconception that Apple lost that suit because "you can't patent look and feel" when that isn't the case at all. The suit was "settled" (not "lost"), because Apple could have been construed to have given Microsoft permission to copy them in an agreement Apple signed with Microsoft over technology sharing. They settled out of court because of that, not because "look and feel" lawsuits are inherently un-winable.
If Apple has a patent on the "look and feel" of iPhone interface elements (they do), and valid trademarks on the "look and feel" of the iPhone (they do as of last week), there is nothing to stop them from forcing the copy-cats to stop copying them. In fact it's likely to be a slam dunk.
That being said, they don't appear to be doing that. They are being nice and only suing HTC on specific technologies that were pilfered, and don't seem to care about "look and feel" so far.
You are correct in your Apple vs. MS history.
I think some "look and feel" lawsuits were lost (Lotus vs. MS) which makes people wary of suing. I don't believe Apple patents "look and feel"; they patent the hardware (and software) mechanism/process/technique underlying it. In other words, they do not patent the concept of "pinching" to make something smaller. But they do patent the multi-touch mechanism, consisting of hardware sensors and software interpretation, that they use to sense the pinching and compress the image sent to the display.
Others can implement pinching to make something smaller but they need to use a different mechanism to make it happen.
Apple does file for "design trademarks" which provides protection for a certain look of a device. That look can be hardware size/shape or a software-driven arrangement of an icon(s) on a display, or both.
Why do we have to take advice from guys, like sranger, that don't have a Mac or an iPhone?
Actually I own two macs......
My point is that the suit is more about Apply not wanting to have to compete with a phone like the Nexus One which seem to operate significantly different than the iPhone...
P.S. The look and feel issue was sorted out years ago with the Lotus vs Excel law suits.....
The GUI
The Mouse
At least a window GUI and a computer mouse have NOT been invented by Apple
At least a window GUI and a computer mouse have NOT been invented by Apple
Nor did Apple invent a touchscreen on a smartphone, but they sure as hell perfected it.
Game. Changer.
Same with whatever came attached to the Macintosh in 1984.
I think that Apple didn't bother going after Palm because Palm was "only" piggybacking onto iTunes, not stealing their products. It really benefitted Apple in a minor way: more iTunes users, more iTunes Store sales. I'm surprised that Apple didn't license an iTunes "key" to Palm for them to use iTunes.
All Apple needed do was tweak iTunes a bit and break the Palm connections. A few hours of programmers' time versus the bottomless money pit of legal action. Sounds like a deal.
Maybe Apple was cutting Jon Rubinstein some slack, too.
Apple might still go after Palm, not for iTunes sync, but for using Apple's techniques in implementing its multi-touch, if Palm actually did so. After all, the Palm Pre only came to market in May 2009, which is way after the HTC Dream (T-Mobile G1) that is mentioned in Apple's suit.
There is more than one way to implement multi-touch in hardware/software, and maybe Palm actually figured out another way to do it. In which case, Apple wouldn't sue.
In reality and not fantasy land (where so many live), it takes time and resources to break down your competitor's products to see what it is that they most likely did.
At least a window GUI and a computer mouse have NOT been invented by Apple
Eventually your argument will break down into "matter can't be destroyed or created so Apple have NOT invented anything." Seriously though, the way the GUI and mouse are implemented and utilized can be patented.
At least a window GUI and a computer mouse have NOT been invented by Apple
Game-changing does not equal invention.
Game-changing is bringing a product to market in such a way that it changes the game. It could include an invention, or a simple modification of someone else's invention, or no invention at all. It could have little to do with the actual product, and instead be a sales, marketing, legal, or business maneuver.