.. (i.e. Xerox, who Apple first stole the technology from) ..
You mean of course: 'Xerox, who inspired Apple to create the Lisa and later on Mac user interface."
If you steal technology, you copy blueprints of existing technology. Like for example with Concorde and Tupolev or the Borjan and the space shuttle.
And with software you steal actual code.
Non of this happened, Apple needed years of development to build the hard and software for the Lisa and Mac. Apple added several Xerox developers to the team to get the job done. But all code was created by Apple, some of it was maybe inspired by Xerox, but a lot had to be created from scratch.
You could say Apple 'stole the idea', but that isn't a crime because it wasn't patented by Xerox (and it shouldn't be possible to patent an idea, only an solution with actual hardware to prove it).
If you can build a Saturnus V rocket from seeing a V2 you should get a medal. The US military failed to do this even with the blueprints in hand, and - in the end - needed Werner Von Braun to get it done.
Of which you clearly know nothing about. That case is based on Copyright, not Patent law such as this suit is.
With Google Books, Google was/is attempting to create a valuable, public good, store of knowledge by creating a search engine that would allow people to find data from any book ever published. Rather than tediously having to borrow several books to find information, the public would be able to search every book ever published for a user-defined term, which would bring up an excerpt of the text (as much as is permitted under Copyright Fair Use laws) with a link to purchase the book to get the rest of the content. Similar to what Google scholar does already for academic journals and papers.
Obviously the book publishers do not like someone else making advertising money off their products, regardless of the public good it may be doing, and therefore filed suit against Google. They feared that Google would do to them what Apple did to the music industry.
The main issue in the Google Books case is not what Google was/is trying to do, but how they are/were doing it. Rather than purchasing the books, they would hired students to borrow the books from the library and scan them into digital documents that Google then turned into searchable excerpts. I would agree that Google was wrong to do it in this manner, but the publishers are trying to make a bigger deal out of it than it really is. Let Google purchase the books to scan them and call it a day.
Serious question: Is there an example of an original Google creation that is successful in the marketplace?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Search? Maps? Do those count?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Those aren't original in the sense of them being the first to do them. One could argue they did them better (which is probably correct in terms of search, but not clearly so, in my opinion, in terms of maps) but I'm not sure I would call them "original creations". One of the problems with Google is that they don't respect the law, particularly IP law, and act like it doesn't apply to them.
The question was: Is there an example of an original Google creation that is successful in the marketplace?
A search algorithm is a creation and Google's was definitely original. Asking if it successful in the marketplace is just silly.
Google Maps' back-end processes make it an original creation. Successful in the marketplace? I think so.
The iPhone came out with a phone with an icon-based application manager interface. Blackberry had such an interface well before Apple on a cell phone and I'm sure others before them. There is nothing revolutionary about that at all, just fancier graphics in the case of Apple's implementation. Icon-based application launchers are as old as the first GUI-based operating systems (i.e. Xerox, who Apple first stole the technology from).
Which Apple patent is defending icon-based application launchers? None, read the patents; they're about much deeper topics than just an icon-based application launcher.
Quote:
Added to that is multi-touch, again only "revolutionary" as far as it's use in a consumer handset. Elan and Synaptics invented multi-touch and have used it in commercial applications and resold the technology to just about every technology OEM out there.
If Elan and Synaptics invented multi-touch, then why haven't they sued Apple from profiting from their invention? (Did you know that Apple worked with Synaptics to create the touch components used in the iPod click wheel, and then dumped them and made the component itself? Synaptics didn't sue when Apple did this, which leads me to believe Apple owns the basic touch technology that was added.)
And also if what you say is true, then why did Apple buy Fingerworks in order to get their talent and patents? In any case, it's obviously more than just the concept of multi-touch. It's the method used in it's implementation.
Quote:
The only feature Apple could possibly have a case on is the App Store integration. Apple will make a big deal about this in the press creating FUD to disrupt the commercial success of their competitors and will then sign a licensing deal to settle the manner. This is nothing but pure anti-competitive actions by a hypocritical company that has stolen more than their fair share of technology from others.
Apple, sign a cross-licensing deal and get back to proving that you have the best technology by innovating and not by being a patent troll.
And please name the patented technologies (not ideas) that Apple has stole from others.
...Now if Apple wasn't "threatened" as you say, then couldn't they have just simply stopped at the lawsuit itself (essentially asking HTC to just pay)? Asking the court to literally stop all of those phones from crossing our borders and to remove all existing phones in our borders seems really excessive....
I am sure Apple could have stopped at a nice phone call to HTC and just asked pretty please. Truth is, this gives some big stick leverage to actually getting HTC "to just pay", which may well be Apple's only objective -- plus getting the next company to think twice before shamelessly copying iPhone features. If HTC thinks it likely could be blocked from the entire US market if it proceeds, then it is that much more likely to enter into licensing terms that are favorable to Apple.
Either that, or HTC will need to rethink its feature set; which also works for Apple and helps keep the iPhone unique, as well as the product with the best implementation of the features in question.
Who cares if people think it makes Apple look like they "feel threatened"? We will see how the iPad, iPhone OS 4 and iPhone 4 perform this year. Point is, manufacturers should pay a little tribute to Apple for pioneering all the features that consumers now expect a smart phone to exhibit and how they perform. Consumers are largely choosing other smartphones on how well they conform to the expectations that Apple has created. Again.
Didn't say they were - yet. However, both Apple and Google use GPL3 licensed code within their software and that license is what contains the clause. By filing a patent suit against features in Android (if that is indeed what they are going after) they could trigger the GPL3 anti-patent clauses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll
Which licenses are being violated by Apple, and how?
Lets set the way back machine to 1986? Apple Sued Microsoft for infringement on its graphical user interface. Apple lost, eventually, due to prior art at Xerox-PARC, but I believe that Xerox, by not defending it, lost the ability to require licenses of that technology from both companies. My memory might be hazy on the exact details, and I am not going to do a lit search to post on a blog. ;-) [edited for readability - need more coffee]
It but be fun letting one's imagination run wild! But how can you make all that stuff up with a straight face? You left no hint of sarcasm. Are we to assume you are serious?
Didn't say they were - yet. However, both Apple and Google use GPL3 licensed code within their software and that license is what contains the clause. By filing a patent suit against features in Android (if that is indeed what they are going after) they could trigger the GPL3 anti-patent clauses.
In the suit there are patents that seem so low level that they not only apply to Android, but even to Linux kernel.
The key is 'statute of limitations' had passed on the Xerox infringement. So, yes, they can litigate, but if they don't defend for 7 years (I believe that is the statute of limitation) from the first infringement, they cannot press the infringement case.
No, that was a copyright case because Apple was not allowed to have a patent.
You have to defend your copyrights and trademarks when you know about an infringement, or you risk losing them. But you can be choosy about defending your patents.
You mean other than Google Search, Map/Reduce, Google Maps and Ad Sense?
Perhaps my question was poorly stated: Are those original creations? Didn't we have Mapquest, Yahoo/Lycos search etc? (I don't know about AdSense). I am not saying that Google didn't innovate here to make them better, but I was talking about a product or service they have created out of the blue.
Of which you clearly know nothing about. That case is based on Copyright, not Patent law such as this suit is.
Copyright and Patent and patent law are both concerned with Intellectual Property, so I fail to see the distinction you are attempting to make. Perhaps one without a difference?
Quote:
With Google Books, Google was/is attempting to create a valuable, public good, store of knowledge by creating a search engine that would allow people to find data from any book ever published.... Let Google purchase the books to scan them and call it a day.
With Google Books, what Google is attempting to do is to make money by stealing the intellectual property of others, specifically authors. Purchasing the books to steal the content would be no different legally from scanning books that belong to a library.
1. Before the iPhone, there was nothing out there quite like it. No one accused Apple of copying some other successful handset. Everyone agreed that it was revolutionary. There was much debate over whether it would succeed, but no one accused it of being derivative. After the iPhone became a smash hit, paradigm shifter for the industry, everyone started making me too products as carriers were losing customers to the AT&T/iPhone machine. That means the customers thought the iPhone was new and innovative as well because they left what they had for the iPhone. It is easy to trace the dramatic shift in the mobile industry to the announcement of the iPhone. If Apple can't defend its patents on something that obviously revolutionary, then all patents are meaningless.
2. The main thus of the argument against Apple does not seem to be that they did not innovate, but that everyone steels. People who want to take away the ability to patent new ideas are those who do not come up with new ideas. It is the fast food industry all over again. McDonald's spends millions of dollars deciding where to put a new restaurant; Burger King buys the closest piece of property to that and puts up a new location. In bicycle races, the lead biker expends the lion share of the energy while everyone else drafts in his wake, expending little energy. Almost every smartphone released after summer 2007 would just go away if me too products were banned. Everyone likes what Apple invents but does not want to pay Apple for the privilege. That is why we have Windows, and every other technology that has ever KIRFed an Apple innovation.
At least be intellectually honest. The only reason Android, WebOS, Windows Phone, and others even exist is to give people an iPhone-ish experience that does not come from Apple. Stop suggesting that Apple shouldn't defend its patents. Just admit that you don't believe any idea should be patentable. At least then, this would be an honest debate.
Those aren't original in the sense of them being the first to do them. One could argue they did them better (which is probably correct in terms of search, but not clearly so, in my opinion, in terms of maps) but I'm not sure I would call them "original creations". One of the problems with Google is that they don't respect the law, particularly IP law, and act like it doesn't apply to them.
Try reading a book that pertains to the subject such as the history of Commodore.
It is common knowledge that both Apple and Microsoft got access to and copied features to technology invented by Xerox, HP, and others. Whether it was patented yet or not does not excuse the theft of IP that they did prior to IP protection being as vigorously enforced as it is today. Had they pulled the same antics today, they'd either be in jail or sued into oblivion. You say "inspired", that is mincing words with copying Copyrighted or Trademarked designs. Apple has gone after competitors for "inspired" versions of their Shuffle bubble-gum stick MP3. These were not patent suits, but Copyright and Trademark suits over the design of the player. As you well know, the Xerox case was about Copyright and Trademark issues and the only reason they didn't win is because it took them 7 years to wake up and realize what Apple and Microsoft did, which was past the statute of limitations during which you can bring suits of those types.
I understand (being on this site) that you are expressing your Apple fan-boy opinions. But don't try to express them as fact. They are just FUDing up the conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjnjn
You mean of course: 'Xerox, who inspired Apple to create the Lisa and later on Mac user interface."
If you steal technology, you copy blueprints of existing technology. Like for example with Concorde and Tupolev or the Borjan and the space shuttle.
And with software you steal actual code.
Non of this happened, Apple needed years of development to build the hard and software for the Lisa and Mac. Apple added several Xerox developers to the team to get the job done. But all code was created by Apple, some of it was maybe inspired by Xerox, but a lot had to be created from scratch.
You could say Apple 'stole the idea', but that isn't a crime because it wasn't patented by Xerox (and it shouldn't be possible to patent an idea, only an solution with actual hardware to prove it).
If you can build a Saturnus V rocket from seeing a V2 you should get a medal. The US military failed to do this even with the blueprints in hand, and - in the end - needed Werner Von Braun to get it done.
1. Before the iPhone, there was nothing out there quite like it. No one accused Apple of copying some other successful handset. Everyone agreed that it was revolutionary. There was much debate over whether it would succeed, but no one accused it of being derivative. After the iPhone became a smash hit, paradigm shifter for the industry, everyone started making me too products as carriers were losing customers to the AT&T/iPhone machine. That means the customers thought the iPhone was new and innovative as well because they left what they had for the iPhone. It is easy to trace the dramatic shift in the mobile industry to the announcement of the iPhone. If Apple can't defend its patents on something that obviously revolutionary, then all patents are meaningless.
2. The main thus of the argument against Apple does not seem to be that they did not innovate, but that everyone steels. People who want to take away the ability to patent new ideas are those who do not come up with new ideas. It is the fast food industry all over again. McDonald's spends millions of dollars deciding where to put a new restaurant; Burger King buys the closest piece of property to that and puts up a new location. In bicycle races, the lead biker expends the lion share of the energy while everyone else drafts in his wake, expending little energy. Almost every smartphone released after summer 2007 would just go away if me too products were banned. Everyone likes what Apple invents but does not want to pay Apple for the privilege. That is why we have Windows, and every other technology that has ever KIRFed an Apple innovation.
At least be intellectually honest. The only reason Android, WebOS, Windows Phone, and others even exist is to give people an iPhone-ish experience that does not come from Apple. Stop suggesting that Apple shouldn't defend its patents. Just admit that you don't believe any idea should be patentable. At least then, this would be an honest debate.
Sometimes I think that people in this forum lives in a totally different reality where only Almighty Apple is the good, the better, the best and everyone else only copycat, steal, etc.
Ps. When you talk about mobile industry, talk about USA, not the rest of the world. iPhone doesn't have revolutionized none in Europe.
Comments
.. (i.e. Xerox, who Apple first stole the technology from) ..
You mean of course: 'Xerox, who inspired Apple to create the Lisa and later on Mac user interface."
If you steal technology, you copy blueprints of existing technology. Like for example with Concorde and Tupolev or the Borjan and the space shuttle.
And with software you steal actual code.
Non of this happened, Apple needed years of development to build the hard and software for the Lisa and Mac. Apple added several Xerox developers to the team to get the job done. But all code was created by Apple, some of it was maybe inspired by Xerox, but a lot had to be created from scratch.
You could say Apple 'stole the idea', but that isn't a crime because it wasn't patented by Xerox (and it shouldn't be possible to patent an idea, only an solution with actual hardware to prove it).
If you can build a Saturnus V rocket from seeing a V2 you should get a medal. The US military failed to do this even with the blueprints in hand, and - in the end - needed Werner Von Braun to get it done.
J.
With Google Books, Google was/is attempting to create a valuable, public good, store of knowledge by creating a search engine that would allow people to find data from any book ever published. Rather than tediously having to borrow several books to find information, the public would be able to search every book ever published for a user-defined term, which would bring up an excerpt of the text (as much as is permitted under Copyright Fair Use laws) with a link to purchase the book to get the rest of the content. Similar to what Google scholar does already for academic journals and papers.
Obviously the book publishers do not like someone else making advertising money off their products, regardless of the public good it may be doing, and therefore filed suit against Google. They feared that Google would do to them what Apple did to the music industry.
The main issue in the Google Books case is not what Google was/is trying to do, but how they are/were doing it. Rather than purchasing the books, they would hired students to borrow the books from the library and scan them into digital documents that Google then turned into searchable excerpts. I would agree that Google was wrong to do it in this manner, but the publishers are trying to make a bigger deal out of it than it really is. Let Google purchase the books to scan them and call it a day.
Maybe you haven't heard of the Google Books case?
Serious question: Is there an example of an original Google creation that is successful in the marketplace?
Search? Maps? Do those count?
Those aren't original in the sense of them being the first to do them. One could argue they did them better (which is probably correct in terms of search, but not clearly so, in my opinion, in terms of maps) but I'm not sure I would call them "original creations". One of the problems with Google is that they don't respect the law, particularly IP law, and act like it doesn't apply to them.
The question was: Is there an example of an original Google creation that is successful in the marketplace?
A search algorithm is a creation and Google's was definitely original. Asking if it successful in the marketplace is just silly.
Google Maps' back-end processes make it an original creation. Successful in the marketplace? I think so.
The iPhone came out with a phone with an icon-based application manager interface. Blackberry had such an interface well before Apple on a cell phone and I'm sure others before them. There is nothing revolutionary about that at all, just fancier graphics in the case of Apple's implementation. Icon-based application launchers are as old as the first GUI-based operating systems (i.e. Xerox, who Apple first stole the technology from).
Which Apple patent is defending icon-based application launchers? None, read the patents; they're about much deeper topics than just an icon-based application launcher.
Added to that is multi-touch, again only "revolutionary" as far as it's use in a consumer handset. Elan and Synaptics invented multi-touch and have used it in commercial applications and resold the technology to just about every technology OEM out there.
If Elan and Synaptics invented multi-touch, then why haven't they sued Apple from profiting from their invention? (Did you know that Apple worked with Synaptics to create the touch components used in the iPod click wheel, and then dumped them and made the component itself? Synaptics didn't sue when Apple did this, which leads me to believe Apple owns the basic touch technology that was added.)
And also if what you say is true, then why did Apple buy Fingerworks in order to get their talent and patents? In any case, it's obviously more than just the concept of multi-touch. It's the method used in it's implementation.
The only feature Apple could possibly have a case on is the App Store integration. Apple will make a big deal about this in the press creating FUD to disrupt the commercial success of their competitors and will then sign a licensing deal to settle the manner. This is nothing but pure anti-competitive actions by a hypocritical company that has stolen more than their fair share of technology from others.
Apple, sign a cross-licensing deal and get back to proving that you have the best technology by innovating and not by being a patent troll.
And please name the patented technologies (not ideas) that Apple has stole from others.
...Now if Apple wasn't "threatened" as you say, then couldn't they have just simply stopped at the lawsuit itself (essentially asking HTC to just pay)? Asking the court to literally stop all of those phones from crossing our borders and to remove all existing phones in our borders seems really excessive....
I am sure Apple could have stopped at a nice phone call to HTC and just asked pretty please. Truth is, this gives some big stick leverage to actually getting HTC "to just pay", which may well be Apple's only objective -- plus getting the next company to think twice before shamelessly copying iPhone features. If HTC thinks it likely could be blocked from the entire US market if it proceeds, then it is that much more likely to enter into licensing terms that are favorable to Apple.
Either that, or HTC will need to rethink its feature set; which also works for Apple and helps keep the iPhone unique, as well as the product with the best implementation of the features in question.
Who cares if people think it makes Apple look like they "feel threatened"? We will see how the iPad, iPhone OS 4 and iPhone 4 perform this year. Point is, manufacturers should pay a little tribute to Apple for pioneering all the features that consumers now expect a smart phone to exhibit and how they perform. Consumers are largely choosing other smartphones on how well they conform to the expectations that Apple has created. Again.
Which licenses are being violated by Apple, and how?
Also if this does get nasty has Apple got its alternative to Google Maps ready yet?
Apple bought Placebase last year.
And I'd think Yahoo (or even Microsoft) wouldn't mind getting paid to supply maps for Apple's mobile products.
Do you believe Apple invented multi-touch?
That wasn't the question asked.
Lets set the way back machine to 1986? Apple Sued Microsoft for infringement on its graphical user interface. Apple lost, eventually, due to prior art at Xerox-PARC, but I believe that Xerox, by not defending it, lost the ability to require licenses of that technology from both companies. My memory might be hazy on the exact details, and I am not going to do a lit search to post on a blog. ;-) [edited for readability - need more coffee]
It but be fun letting one's imagination run wild! But how can you make all that stuff up with a straight face? You left no hint of sarcasm. Are we to assume you are serious?
Didn't say they were - yet. However, both Apple and Google use GPL3 licensed code within their software and that license is what contains the clause. By filing a patent suit against features in Android (if that is indeed what they are going after) they could trigger the GPL3 anti-patent clauses.
In the suit there are patents that seem so low level that they not only apply to Android, but even to Linux kernel.
AHA! I was right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...ft_Corporation
The key is 'statute of limitations' had passed on the Xerox infringement. So, yes, they can litigate, but if they don't defend for 7 years (I believe that is the statute of limitation) from the first infringement, they cannot press the infringement case.
No, that was a copyright case because Apple was not allowed to have a patent.
You have to defend your copyrights and trademarks when you know about an infringement, or you risk losing them. But you can be choosy about defending your patents.
You mean other than Google Search, Map/Reduce, Google Maps and Ad Sense?
Perhaps my question was poorly stated: Are those original creations? Didn't we have Mapquest, Yahoo/Lycos search etc? (I don't know about AdSense). I am not saying that Google didn't innovate here to make them better, but I was talking about a product or service they have created out of the blue.
Search? Maps? Do those count?
See above.
Of which you clearly know nothing about. That case is based on Copyright, not Patent law such as this suit is.
Copyright and Patent and patent law are both concerned with Intellectual Property, so I fail to see the distinction you are attempting to make. Perhaps one without a difference?
With Google Books, Google was/is attempting to create a valuable, public good, store of knowledge by creating a search engine that would allow people to find data from any book ever published.... Let Google purchase the books to scan them and call it a day.
With Google Books, what Google is attempting to do is to make money by stealing the intellectual property of others, specifically authors. Purchasing the books to steal the content would be no different legally from scanning books that belong to a library.
1. Before the iPhone, there was nothing out there quite like it. No one accused Apple of copying some other successful handset. Everyone agreed that it was revolutionary. There was much debate over whether it would succeed, but no one accused it of being derivative. After the iPhone became a smash hit, paradigm shifter for the industry, everyone started making me too products as carriers were losing customers to the AT&T/iPhone machine. That means the customers thought the iPhone was new and innovative as well because they left what they had for the iPhone. It is easy to trace the dramatic shift in the mobile industry to the announcement of the iPhone. If Apple can't defend its patents on something that obviously revolutionary, then all patents are meaningless.
2. The main thus of the argument against Apple does not seem to be that they did not innovate, but that everyone steels. People who want to take away the ability to patent new ideas are those who do not come up with new ideas. It is the fast food industry all over again. McDonald's spends millions of dollars deciding where to put a new restaurant; Burger King buys the closest piece of property to that and puts up a new location. In bicycle races, the lead biker expends the lion share of the energy while everyone else drafts in his wake, expending little energy. Almost every smartphone released after summer 2007 would just go away if me too products were banned. Everyone likes what Apple invents but does not want to pay Apple for the privilege. That is why we have Windows, and every other technology that has ever KIRFed an Apple innovation.
At least be intellectually honest. The only reason Android, WebOS, Windows Phone, and others even exist is to give people an iPhone-ish experience that does not come from Apple. Stop suggesting that Apple shouldn't defend its patents. Just admit that you don't believe any idea should be patentable. At least then, this would be an honest debate.
Those aren't original in the sense of them being the first to do them. One could argue they did them better (which is probably correct in terms of search, but not clearly so, in my opinion, in terms of maps) but I'm not sure I would call them "original creations". One of the problems with Google is that they don't respect the law, particularly IP law, and act like it doesn't apply to them.
Bingo. Thanks.
It is common knowledge that both Apple and Microsoft got access to and copied features to technology invented by Xerox, HP, and others. Whether it was patented yet or not does not excuse the theft of IP that they did prior to IP protection being as vigorously enforced as it is today. Had they pulled the same antics today, they'd either be in jail or sued into oblivion. You say "inspired", that is mincing words with copying Copyrighted or Trademarked designs. Apple has gone after competitors for "inspired" versions of their Shuffle bubble-gum stick MP3. These were not patent suits, but Copyright and Trademark suits over the design of the player. As you well know, the Xerox case was about Copyright and Trademark issues and the only reason they didn't win is because it took them 7 years to wake up and realize what Apple and Microsoft did, which was past the statute of limitations during which you can bring suits of those types.
I understand (being on this site) that you are expressing your Apple fan-boy opinions. But don't try to express them as fact. They are just FUDing up the conversation.
You mean of course: 'Xerox, who inspired Apple to create the Lisa and later on Mac user interface."
If you steal technology, you copy blueprints of existing technology. Like for example with Concorde and Tupolev or the Borjan and the space shuttle.
And with software you steal actual code.
Non of this happened, Apple needed years of development to build the hard and software for the Lisa and Mac. Apple added several Xerox developers to the team to get the job done. But all code was created by Apple, some of it was maybe inspired by Xerox, but a lot had to be created from scratch.
You could say Apple 'stole the idea', but that isn't a crime because it wasn't patented by Xerox (and it shouldn't be possible to patent an idea, only an solution with actual hardware to prove it).
If you can build a Saturnus V rocket from seeing a V2 you should get a medal. The US military failed to do this even with the blueprints in hand, and - in the end - needed Werner Von Braun to get it done.
J.
Two points:
1. Before the iPhone, there was nothing out there quite like it. No one accused Apple of copying some other successful handset. Everyone agreed that it was revolutionary. There was much debate over whether it would succeed, but no one accused it of being derivative. After the iPhone became a smash hit, paradigm shifter for the industry, everyone started making me too products as carriers were losing customers to the AT&T/iPhone machine. That means the customers thought the iPhone was new and innovative as well because they left what they had for the iPhone. It is easy to trace the dramatic shift in the mobile industry to the announcement of the iPhone. If Apple can't defend its patents on something that obviously revolutionary, then all patents are meaningless.
2. The main thus of the argument against Apple does not seem to be that they did not innovate, but that everyone steels. People who want to take away the ability to patent new ideas are those who do not come up with new ideas. It is the fast food industry all over again. McDonald's spends millions of dollars deciding where to put a new restaurant; Burger King buys the closest piece of property to that and puts up a new location. In bicycle races, the lead biker expends the lion share of the energy while everyone else drafts in his wake, expending little energy. Almost every smartphone released after summer 2007 would just go away if me too products were banned. Everyone likes what Apple invents but does not want to pay Apple for the privilege. That is why we have Windows, and every other technology that has ever KIRFed an Apple innovation.
At least be intellectually honest. The only reason Android, WebOS, Windows Phone, and others even exist is to give people an iPhone-ish experience that does not come from Apple. Stop suggesting that Apple shouldn't defend its patents. Just admit that you don't believe any idea should be patentable. At least then, this would be an honest debate.
Sometimes I think that people in this forum lives in a totally different reality where only Almighty Apple is the good, the better, the best and everyone else only copycat, steal, etc.
Ps. When you talk about mobile industry, talk about USA, not the rest of the world. iPhone doesn't have revolutionized none in Europe.
Of which you clearly know nothing about. That case is based on Copyright, not Patent law such as this suit is.
They are conceptually similar issues.