The patents Apple are using deal with specific implementations of software and hardware, which act as described in the patent.
An iPhone is a real thing, it does what the patents describe.
An iPhone is not an idea, if I dropped one on your head from a tree in a demonstration of Newtonian physics i.e. gravity then you would probably feel the impact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers
So what is the difference between an idea and an implementation? In my opinion, an implementation is something that physically exists. As far as I can tell the patent system only deals in ideas. I think there is something wrong with what the patent system says they do and what they actually do. I have no idea how you would patent an implementation. Submit the entire source code for your implementation?
Stealing ideas and stealing work are two different things. Steve said himself that geniuses stand on the shoulders of others. Apple proudly flew the pirate flag at their office, so now they are just being hypocritical... I hope this doesn't become standard practice...
If you say yes, you have no choice but to grant Apple its unlock screen implementation patent even though it's a GUI design, software, not hardware. Really what's the difference? The design is unique, not obvious, and there are a gazillion other ways to unlock a screen.
The one issue with this is that the patent Apple has just says "Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image". The picture on the patent shows the left-to-right, but the wording is extremely broad.
Lets say HTC (or any other developer) uses the other Android lock screen where you trace dots on a 3x3 grid to unlock it. That's drastically different than the simple left-to-right swipe, but yet the way the patent is worded, Apple can still sue for that. As the patent is worded, as long as it involves a touchscreen and some type of gesture on that touchscreen, it would be a violation of the patent. Drastically limits that "gazillion other ways", doesn't it?
I have no issue with Apple having a patent for the left-to-right swipe, but the patent as-worded, it's way to broad to have been issued.
The one issue with this is that the patent Apple has just says "Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image". The picture on the patent shows the left-to-right, but the wording is extremely broad.
Lets say HTC (or any other developer) uses the other Android lock screen where you trace dots on a 3x3 grid to unlock it. That's drastically different than the simple left-to-right swipe, but yet the way the patent is worded, Apple can still sue for that. As the patent is worded, as long as it involves a touchscreen and some type of gesture on that touchscreen, it would be a violation of the patent. Drastically limits that "gazillion other ways", doesn't it?
I have no issue with Apple having a patent for the left-to-right swipe, but the patent as-worded, it's way to broad to have been issued.
The DROID has been on the market for a few months with the arc slide, which Apple didn't seem to have any issue with. Then it got the 2.0.1 update which turned it from the arc to a flat left-to-right motion, which Apple still has not reacted to. It also has the 3x3 "code grid" method, which essentially is still "gestures on a image", to which Apple also has not reacted to.
It's my opinion (shared by numerous articles out there), that this is Apple's proxy battle with Android by going after the easiest member of the Android family, HTC. Pretty much all Android phones use some method of finger sliding to unlock it. Why hasn't Apple gone after any of the other members of the Open Handset Alliance in the same suit? Or even Google itself, since it's the one that created the base software that all the other are using?
Here's Wikipedia's page for HP's iPaq line of PDAs:
Those devices were released as early as 2001 and have the same general look as the HTC smartphones of today. So by your logic, Apple has copied the "look" of the iPaqs and Axims.
I would argue that HTC's N1 and Desire are completely different from the iPhone from a technological view. They have 4 buttons and a trackpad/ball, not a single button like the iPhone has. The iPhone's Home button is something you press to get to the main screen, not a navigation device like on the HTC smartphones.
I think it's more logical that all of these designs came about because of ergonomic design for the user. What if all the buttons were arranged at the top face of the phone, just for the sake of keeping it from looking like the iPhone (as you seem to want)? The user would have to cover up the screen every time they want to use a button. This configuration of having the main user interaction buttons below the screen has been around for years.
Suing over just the layout would be the same as Ford suing Nissan for having a car with four wheels and has the driver on the front left of the body. Or Boeing suing Airbus because their planes have 2 wings and a tail and has the cockpit at the front of the fuselage.
Those devices were released as early as 2001 and have the same general look as the HTC smartphones of today. So by your logic, Apple has copied the "look" of the iPaqs and Axims.
Since the Newton never took off and you claim everyone else is copying Apple, then why did Apple not sue HP or Dell for its iPAQ and Axim lines then? Or Palm for that matter, since the PalmPilots look more like the Newton than any PocketPC. They could have used some of the same patents they are suing HTC over, since the patents have been around since the 90s.
HP and Dell (with Microsoft's software) clearly advanced what the Newton was, to sell well during the days of the PocketPC. Just as HTC, Samsung, Motrola, etc (with Google's software) has advanced what the iPhone was, to sell well during this age of the smartphones.
Why has Apple suddenly decided that now is the time to sue a rival?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion
When you don't have arguments you joke? Interesting.
Clearly!
But your image interests me. What is that old behemoth of a PDA? I'm assuming since you posted it after the image of the Newton, that it pre-dates it?
Obviously because at those points in time they weren't violating the patents as Apple alleges now.
btw the term PDA was originally coined to describe the Newton at it's introduction in 1992.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
So the question I have to ask of you then:
Since the Newton never took off and you claim everyone else is copying Apple, then why did Apple not sue HP or Dell for its iPAQ and Axim lines then? Or Palm for that matter, since the PalmPilots look more like the Newton than any PocketPC. They could have used some of the same patents they are suing HTC over, since the patents have been around since the 90s.
HP and Dell (with Microsoft's software) clearly advanced what the Newton was, to sell well during the days of the PocketPC. Just as HTC, Samsung, Motrola, etc (with Google's software) has advanced what the iPhone was, to sell well during this age of the smartphones.
Why has Apple suddenly decided that now is the time to sue a rival?
Clearly!
But your image interests me. What is that old behemoth of a PDA? I'm assuming since you posted it after the image of the Newton, that it pre-dates it?
When you don't have arguments you joke? Interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Obviously because at those points in time they weren't violating the patents as Apple alleges now.
btw the term PDA was originally coined to describe the Newton at it's introduction in 1992.
Yet some of the patents Apple is suing for go back to before when some of those devices were sold. I would assume that the software built upon those in one way or another (as broadly worded as Apple's patents are).
My whole point is that you're alleging that HTC just now is getting sued because the Desire and N1 "look" like the iPhone. I've pointed out (and you too), that all these devices have looked like each other for the past 2 decades (roughly).
And some of the patents Apple are suing for were just granted in February of this year (a bit suspect for my taste). If a patent isn't officially granted and a company does work on something similar and releases it before the patent is granted, how does the patent get applied? It's not like a company can sit there and wait until a decision is made.
And yes, I know that the term "PDA" was coined by John Sculley at CES in 1997. I don't think you pointing out random facts (especially ones that obviously point to "Apple did it first!") to me makes your argument any better.
The one issue with this is that the patent Apple has just says "Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image". The picture on the patent shows the left-to-right, but the wording is extremely broad.
No, it's relatively specific: The device displays one or more unlock images with respect to which the predefined gestures is to be performed in order to unlock the device. The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined locations and/or moving the unlock image along a predefined part.
Basically, the patent hinges on dragging an unlock "image" to a predefined location. Every single embodiment and figure in the patent states the user drags an image to a predefined location. That's specific enough.
Quote:
Lets say HTC (or any other developer) uses the other Android lock screen where you trace dots on a 3x3 grid to unlock it. That's drastically different than the simple left-to-right swipe, but yet the way the patent is worded, Apple can still sue for that. As the patent is worded, as long as it involves a touchscreen and some type of gesture on that touchscreen, it would be a violation of the patent. Drastically limits that "gazillion other ways", doesn't it?
This unlock method, similar to earlier and existing versions of Android, would not infringe upon the patent. Just read the patent. I can't see how what you are describing (dot/pattern tracing) would infringe upon the patent or how the patent would cover it. It's really a different design with different UI concepts.
Apple's design for gesture unlocking is likely the quickest and easiest way; hence, why Android started using it. The curve in the trajectory was what, the minimum necessary to copy Apple's design without looking blatant about it. Google/HTC (and Moto) didn't have to do this and could have kept the pattern tracing or some other design to unlock the screen.
Comments
An iPhone is a real thing, it does what the patents describe.
An iPhone is not an idea, if I dropped one on your head from a tree in a demonstration of Newtonian physics i.e. gravity then you would probably feel the impact.
So what is the difference between an idea and an implementation? In my opinion, an implementation is something that physically exists. As far as I can tell the patent system only deals in ideas. I think there is something wrong with what the patent system says they do and what they actually do. I have no idea how you would patent an implementation. Submit the entire source code for your implementation?
I'm glad I live in a place where software patents are not allowed.
Where might that be and how much software innovation happens in your place?
Edit: I see you live in the "EU"... meaning where exactly?
Stealing ideas and stealing work are two different things. Steve said himself that geniuses stand on the shoulders of others. Apple proudly flew the pirate flag at their office, so now they are just being hypocritical... I hope this doesn't become standard practice...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
Ideas are out there, free for the taking. Implementing those ideas, giving them physical form or process is a different matter entirely.
If you say yes, you have no choice but to grant Apple its unlock screen implementation patent even though it's a GUI design, software, not hardware. Really what's the difference? The design is unique, not obvious, and there are a gazillion other ways to unlock a screen.
The one issue with this is that the patent Apple has just says "Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image". The picture on the patent shows the left-to-right, but the wording is extremely broad.
Lets say HTC (or any other developer) uses the other Android lock screen where you trace dots on a 3x3 grid to unlock it. That's drastically different than the simple left-to-right swipe, but yet the way the patent is worded, Apple can still sue for that. As the patent is worded, as long as it involves a touchscreen and some type of gesture on that touchscreen, it would be a violation of the patent. Drastically limits that "gazillion other ways", doesn't it?
I have no issue with Apple having a patent for the left-to-right swipe, but the patent as-worded, it's way to broad to have been issued.
Along comes Android 2.1 on the Nexus 1 and Desire they crossed the line by being almost an exact replica.
Bang, Apple reacts in the best interests of it's shareholders.
I was using a magic today it was doing smartphone things differently to an iPhone, the nexus one and desire overstepped the mark.
Here is an image from HTC's site, it says it all really.
Source
The one issue with this is that the patent Apple has just says "Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image". The picture on the patent shows the left-to-right, but the wording is extremely broad.
Lets say HTC (or any other developer) uses the other Android lock screen where you trace dots on a 3x3 grid to unlock it. That's drastically different than the simple left-to-right swipe, but yet the way the patent is worded, Apple can still sue for that. As the patent is worded, as long as it involves a touchscreen and some type of gesture on that touchscreen, it would be a violation of the patent. Drastically limits that "gazillion other ways", doesn't it?
I have no issue with Apple having a patent for the left-to-right swipe, but the patent as-worded, it's way to broad to have been issued.
Where might that be and how much software innovation happens in your place?
Edit: I see you live in the "EU"... meaning where exactly?
Is the whole EU which doesn't allow software patents
Unlocking like older Android phones used to have or like the Droid has which didn't prompt any reaction from Apple.
Along comes Android 2.1 on the Nexus 1 and Desire they crossed the line by being almost an exact replica.
Can you tell me the qualitative difference bewtween unlocking sliding top bottom as the Hero can unlock and sliding in an arc as the Nexus can unlock?
Unlocking like older Android phones used to have or like the Droid has which didn't prompt any reaction from Apple.
Along comes Android 2.1 on the Nexus 1 and Desire they crossed the line by being almost an exact replica.
Bang, Apple reacts in the best interests of it's shareholders.
I was using a magic today it was doing smartphone things differently to an iPhone, the nexus one and desire overstepped the mark.
Here is an image from HTC's site, it says it all really.
Source
The DROID has been on the market for a few months with the arc slide, which Apple didn't seem to have any issue with. Then it got the 2.0.1 update which turned it from the arc to a flat left-to-right motion, which Apple still has not reacted to. It also has the 3x3 "code grid" method, which essentially is still "gestures on a image", to which Apple also has not reacted to.
It's my opinion (shared by numerous articles out there), that this is Apple's proxy battle with Android by going after the easiest member of the Android family, HTC. Pretty much all Android phones use some method of finger sliding to unlock it. Why hasn't Apple gone after any of the other members of the Open Handset Alliance in the same suit? Or even Google itself, since it's the one that created the base software that all the other are using?
Here's Wikipedia's page for HP's iPaq line of PDAs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPAQ
And Dell's Axim page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_Axim
Those devices were released as early as 2001 and have the same general look as the HTC smartphones of today. So by your logic, Apple has copied the "look" of the iPaqs and Axims.
I would argue that HTC's N1 and Desire are completely different from the iPhone from a technological view. They have 4 buttons and a trackpad/ball, not a single button like the iPhone has. The iPhone's Home button is something you press to get to the main screen, not a navigation device like on the HTC smartphones.
I think it's more logical that all of these designs came about because of ergonomic design for the user. What if all the buttons were arranged at the top face of the phone, just for the sake of keeping it from looking like the iPhone (as you seem to want)? The user would have to cover up the screen every time they want to use a button. This configuration of having the main user interaction buttons below the screen has been around for years.
Suing over just the layout would be the same as Ford suing Nissan for having a car with four wheels and has the driver on the front left of the body. Or Boeing suing Airbus because their planes have 2 wings and a tail and has the cockpit at the front of the fuselage.
Those devices were released as early as 2001 and have the same general look as the HTC smartphones of today. So by your logic, Apple has copied the "look" of the iPaqs and Axims.
Really?
Really?
Really?
Really!
When you don't have arguments you joke? Interesting.
Really!
Really?
So the question I have to ask of you then:
Since the Newton never took off and you claim everyone else is copying Apple, then why did Apple not sue HP or Dell for its iPAQ and Axim lines then? Or Palm for that matter, since the PalmPilots look more like the Newton than any PocketPC. They could have used some of the same patents they are suing HTC over, since the patents have been around since the 90s.
HP and Dell (with Microsoft's software) clearly advanced what the Newton was, to sell well during the days of the PocketPC. Just as HTC, Samsung, Motrola, etc (with Google's software) has advanced what the iPhone was, to sell well during this age of the smartphones.
Why has Apple suddenly decided that now is the time to sue a rival?
When you don't have arguments you joke? Interesting.
Clearly!
But your image interests me. What is that old behemoth of a PDA? I'm assuming since you posted it after the image of the Newton, that it pre-dates it?
btw the term PDA was originally coined to describe the Newton at it's introduction in 1992.
So the question I have to ask of you then:
Since the Newton never took off and you claim everyone else is copying Apple, then why did Apple not sue HP or Dell for its iPAQ and Axim lines then? Or Palm for that matter, since the PalmPilots look more like the Newton than any PocketPC. They could have used some of the same patents they are suing HTC over, since the patents have been around since the 90s.
HP and Dell (with Microsoft's software) clearly advanced what the Newton was, to sell well during the days of the PocketPC. Just as HTC, Samsung, Motrola, etc (with Google's software) has advanced what the iPhone was, to sell well during this age of the smartphones.
Why has Apple suddenly decided that now is the time to sue a rival?
Clearly!
But your image interests me. What is that old behemoth of a PDA? I'm assuming since you posted it after the image of the Newton, that it pre-dates it?
So the question I have to ask of you then:
But your image interests me. What is that old behemoth of a PDA? I'm assuming since you posted it after the image of the Newton, that it pre-dates it?
It's a GridPad 1910, one of the first Tablet PC's, released in 1.989, made by Samsung for Grid
Obviously because at those points in time they weren't violating the patents as Apple alleges now.
Mmm, undervoltiing CPU's was used by Pocket PC's and it's one of the alleged patent violations.
When you don't have arguments you joke? Interesting.
Obviously because at those points in time they weren't violating the patents as Apple alleges now.
btw the term PDA was originally coined to describe the Newton at it's introduction in 1992.
Yet some of the patents Apple is suing for go back to before when some of those devices were sold. I would assume that the software built upon those in one way or another (as broadly worded as Apple's patents are).
My whole point is that you're alleging that HTC just now is getting sued because the Desire and N1 "look" like the iPhone. I've pointed out (and you too), that all these devices have looked like each other for the past 2 decades (roughly).
And some of the patents Apple are suing for were just granted in February of this year (a bit suspect for my taste). If a patent isn't officially granted and a company does work on something similar and releases it before the patent is granted, how does the patent get applied? It's not like a company can sit there and wait until a decision is made.
And yes, I know that the term "PDA" was coined by John Sculley at CES in 1997. I don't think you pointing out random facts (especially ones that obviously point to "Apple did it first!") to me makes your argument any better.
The one issue with this is that the patent Apple has just says "Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image". The picture on the patent shows the left-to-right, but the wording is extremely broad.
No, it's relatively specific: The device displays one or more unlock images with respect to which the predefined gestures is to be performed in order to unlock the device. The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined locations and/or moving the unlock image along a predefined part.
Basically, the patent hinges on dragging an unlock "image" to a predefined location. Every single embodiment and figure in the patent states the user drags an image to a predefined location. That's specific enough.
Lets say HTC (or any other developer) uses the other Android lock screen where you trace dots on a 3x3 grid to unlock it. That's drastically different than the simple left-to-right swipe, but yet the way the patent is worded, Apple can still sue for that. As the patent is worded, as long as it involves a touchscreen and some type of gesture on that touchscreen, it would be a violation of the patent. Drastically limits that "gazillion other ways", doesn't it?
This unlock method, similar to earlier and existing versions of Android, would not infringe upon the patent. Just read the patent. I can't see how what you are describing (dot/pattern tracing) would infringe upon the patent or how the patent would cover it. It's really a different design with different UI concepts.
Apple's design for gesture unlocking is likely the quickest and easiest way; hence, why Android started using it. The curve in the trajectory was what, the minimum necessary to copy Apple's design without looking blatant about it. Google/HTC (and Moto) didn't have to do this and could have kept the pattern tracing or some other design to unlock the screen.