The Apple patent dates I saw (in the news articles) were 2008 and newer. The Linux kernel is a lot older than that and would be prior-art invalidating Apple's patents in that case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion
In the suit there are patents that seem so low level that they not only apply to Android, but even to Linux kernel.
A search algorithm is a creation and Google's was definitely original. Asking if it successful in the marketplace is just silly
Hey, it was just a question, relax. Moreover, why is asking whether something is successful in the marketplace 'silly,' regarding a publicly traded, for-profit business!?
That is like saying that a car and a motorcycle are motorized vehicles and there are no significant differences between them and, as such, is plain old B.S.
I understand you apparently don't like Google, but parroting one (biased) side of a complicated case does not make your opinions factual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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, 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.
Conceptually yes. But there are huge differences in the way they are enforced and in what they apply to. Without pointing out those distinctions, you just creating FUD and clouding the issue at hand. FUDing the issues is how the media generates their revenue; but their spin on the facts shouldn't be taken as the actual intentions of the parties involved.
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.
So you're also in favour of Nokia suing Apple then?
Hey, it was just a question, relax. Moreover, why is asking whether something is successful in the marketplace 'silly,' regarding a publicly traded, for-profit business!?
Because Google is what it is because of this search algorithm. Not knowing that, is silly.
Without pointing out those distinctions, you just creating FUD and clouding the issue at hand.
Of course, distinctions are important, and should most certainly be pointed out if/when they matter.
The point that anonymouse was making was, as I understood it, whether Google had respect, in general, for people's IP, patents, trademarks, copyrights, whatever.... it is a valid concern to raise regarding a generally related set of issues. I feel that, in this context, the specific distinction did not matter.
And I'd think Yahoo (or even Microsoft) wouldn't mind getting paid to supply maps for Apple's mobile products.
They would have to integrate in their SDK though, I believe they have API's pointing to the maps application. I don't how hard this would be and if they could manage good backwards compatibility to older apps.
That is like saying that a car and a motorcycle are motorized vehicles and there are no significant differences between them and, as such, is plain old B.S.
I understand you apparently don't like Google, but parroting one (biased) side of a complicated case does not make your opinions factual.
In certain contexts, the distinction between a car and a motorcycle is insignificant. In this case, since I asserted that Google does not respect intellectual property law, drawing a distinction between patent and copyright law is obviously a distinction without a difference, in the context of the discussion.
As to whether my opinions are "factual" (to use your word) or not, please explain to us how Google has not violated intellectual property law in its Google Books program.
The only people calling the iPhone revolutionary were the Apple fan-boys and media types that had a hard-on for Apple products. At the time, Blackberries were the revolutionary product allowing people to be productive via phone and e-mail communication wherever they were. Apple was/is a strong brand and their entrance into the cell phone market as a non-phone company was the revolutionary break-through. Even at that, they had to enlist in AT&Ts help to bring it to market, so event that revolutionary event is debatable. While Apple is now very strong in the market with consumers, business types still prefer Blackberries for their e-mail features and availability on all major cellular services.
I have no issues with Apple defending legitimate hardware patents. I do not believe in software patents; however, yes if Apple did create a revolutionary GUI interface, then they could and should claim COPYRIGHT or TRADEMARK rights over it. However, as everyone knows, nobody is willing to do that because the history of GUIs is so clouded and strife with company stealing GUI designs from each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer
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.
The Apple patent dates I saw (in the news articles) were 2008 and newer. The Linux kernel is a lot older than that and would be prior-art invalidating Apple's patents in that case.
If I remember correctly, some of the patents are from 1994-1996.
It is common knowledge that both Apple and Microsoft got access to and copied features to technology invented by Xerox, HP, and others. ...
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.
Your 'on this site', so does that mean your an Apple fan-boy?
But lest stick to the topic.
So you claim Apple copied code from Xerox and used it in its actual Lisa an Mac products.
I must say my 'common knowledge' fails me on this one.
Maybe you can enlighten me and presents the proof of your statement. (This means a sample - large enough to be significant - of actual code of a Mac that compares exactly to a sample of a Xerox computer of the time. And a verification from experts that this code is actually what you claim it is. But you know this of course, because your an expert on copyright.)
Luckily, this shouldn't be to hard to do, because as you say, it is 'common knowledge'.
And be careful with the use of 'fan-boy', because it will make you a 'troll'.
They would have to integrate in their SDK though, I believe they have API's pointing to the maps application. I don't how hard this would be and if they could manage good backwards compatibility to older apps.
The big hit will be Youtube. Maps and search are easy to replace with Bing map tiles and search results. They can do that for iPhone OS X 4.0. But Youtube has great strategic value with its support of H.264. Google can very easily stick with Flash formats for that.
When Jobs said they needed a $40G bank account for big ideas, he wasn't kidding. This Apple-Google war will make enemies friends and friends enemies, and change the computing landscape. I can very easily see Apple and Microsoft becoming better friends again.
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.
If you read what he says, you would know that he states facts, and that it is not any fanboy hype. Other people invent as well, but we should credit Apple for what they have done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion
Ps. When you talk about mobile industry, talk about USA, not the rest of the world. iPhone doesn't have revolutionized none in Europe.
You know that you barely find a phone shop that does not advertise the iPhone with big banners in europe, right ? (As example I would use France and UK, where all the major carriers have the iPhone, in Germany this is not the case, so I suspect the situation is different). But all the other phones are mainly iPhoneMeToo stuff.
... 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.
Kind of ironic for you to post this troll post that calls Apple a "patent troll."
Seriously though, you don't have a clue what you are talking about (which is why i cut out most of your post), and are just looking like a fool here.
Apple has already explicitly stated (in the linked article which you obviously didn't read), that they will *not* licence their technology to anyone, period. They play a win/lose game and they don't dissemble about what they are after. They want HTC to stop using the patented technology and they will fight to the very end about this you can be certain. They aren't doing it for "leverage" or "cross-licensing" or any of that BS because they don't believe in that sort of thing and have said so explicitly many times over.
In the case of Nokia and others suing Apple, the counter-suit could be at least partially a bargaining position, but this case is one of those rare times when Apple actually outright attacks someone else. They don't do it casually (or at all mostly), and they mean it when they do it.
Most of the patents they cite are fairly ironclad, low-level OS patents that HTC will likely not be able to get out of. I'm sure they, like you, are probably expecting this is a tactic of some kind as it would be coming from almost any other company, but I'd bet money that it isn't.
Again, both Tim Cook and Steve Jobs have made explicit statements to that effect and based on their past behaviour, I believe them.
Comments
In the suit there are patents that seem so low level that they not only apply to Android, but even to Linux kernel.
But lets just say they find a judge crazy enough to grant this. There are drastic consiquences that can flow from this...
Nobody is that stupid... oh wait, you are in America, the country where everything is possible!
But seriously, I guess nobody (i.e. neither Apple nor HTC) wants this fight to go on forever, so they will settle at some point and find a solution.
A search algorithm is a creation and Google's was definitely original. Asking if it successful in the marketplace is just silly
Hey, it was just a question, relax. Moreover, why is asking whether something is successful in the marketplace 'silly,' regarding a publicly traded, for-profit business!?
I understand you apparently don't like Google, but parroting one (biased) side of a complicated case does not make your opinions factual.
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, 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.
They are conceptually similar issues.
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.
So you're also in favour of Nokia suing Apple then?
So in other words the exact opposite of what's going on. ROFL!
Do you realize that you are so quick to defend Apple that you don't make any sense half the time?
Hey, it was just a question, relax. Moreover, why is asking whether something is successful in the marketplace 'silly,' regarding a publicly traded, for-profit business!?
Because Google is what it is because of this search algorithm. Not knowing that, is silly.
Without pointing out those distinctions, you just creating FUD and clouding the issue at hand.
Of course, distinctions are important, and should most certainly be pointed out if/when they matter.
The point that anonymouse was making was, as I understood it, whether Google had respect, in general, for people's IP, patents, trademarks, copyrights, whatever.... it is a valid concern to raise regarding a generally related set of issues. I feel that, in this context, the specific distinction did not matter.
Because Google is what it is because of this search algorithm. Not knowing that, is silly.
What does that have to do with the premise my original question -- go back and re-read it. I explained it again in a later post.
It was along the lines of 'did Google invent search,' not 'did Google invent a better search algorithm.'
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.
They would have to integrate in their SDK though, I believe they have API's pointing to the maps application. I don't how hard this would be and if they could manage good backwards compatibility to older apps.
That is like saying that a car and a motorcycle are motorized vehicles and there are no significant differences between them and, as such, is plain old B.S.
I understand you apparently don't like Google, but parroting one (biased) side of a complicated case does not make your opinions factual.
In certain contexts, the distinction between a car and a motorcycle is insignificant. In this case, since I asserted that Google does not respect intellectual property law, drawing a distinction between patent and copyright law is obviously a distinction without a difference, in the context of the discussion.
As to whether my opinions are "factual" (to use your word) or not, please explain to us how Google has not violated intellectual property law in its Google Books program.
I have no issues with Apple defending legitimate hardware patents. I do not believe in software patents; however, yes if Apple did create a revolutionary GUI interface, then they could and should claim COPYRIGHT or TRADEMARK rights over it. However, as everyone knows, nobody is willing to do that because the history of GUIs is so clouded and strife with company stealing GUI designs from each other.
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.
The Apple patent dates I saw (in the news articles) were 2008 and newer. The Linux kernel is a lot older than that and would be prior-art invalidating Apple's patents in that case.
If I remember correctly, some of the patents are from 1994-1996.
...
It is common knowledge that both Apple and Microsoft got access to and copied features to technology invented by Xerox, HP, and others. ...
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.
Your 'on this site', so does that mean your an Apple fan-boy?
But lest stick to the topic.
So you claim Apple copied code from Xerox and used it in its actual Lisa an Mac products.
I must say my 'common knowledge' fails me on this one.
Maybe you can enlighten me and presents the proof of your statement. (This means a sample - large enough to be significant - of actual code of a Mac that compares exactly to a sample of a Xerox computer of the time. And a verification from experts that this code is actually what you claim it is. But you know this of course, because your an expert on copyright.)
Luckily, this shouldn't be to hard to do, because as you say, it is 'common knowledge'.
And be careful with the use of 'fan-boy', because it will make you a 'troll'.
J.
They would have to integrate in their SDK though, I believe they have API's pointing to the maps application. I don't how hard this would be and if they could manage good backwards compatibility to older apps.
The big hit will be Youtube. Maps and search are easy to replace with Bing map tiles and search results. They can do that for iPhone OS X 4.0. But Youtube has great strategic value with its support of H.264. Google can very easily stick with Flash formats for that.
When Jobs said they needed a $40G bank account for big ideas, he wasn't kidding. This Apple-Google war will make enemies friends and friends enemies, and change the computing landscape. I can very easily see Apple and Microsoft becoming better friends again.
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.
If you read what he says, you would know that he states facts, and that it is not any fanboy hype. Other people invent as well, but we should credit Apple for what they have done.
Ps. When you talk about mobile industry, talk about USA, not the rest of the world. iPhone doesn't have revolutionized none in Europe.
You know that you barely find a phone shop that does not advertise the iPhone with big banners in europe, right ? (As example I would use France and UK, where all the major carriers have the iPhone, in Germany this is not the case, so I suspect the situation is different). But all the other phones are mainly iPhoneMeToo stuff.
... 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.
Kind of ironic for you to post this troll post that calls Apple a "patent troll."
Seriously though, you don't have a clue what you are talking about (which is why i cut out most of your post), and are just looking like a fool here.
Apple has already explicitly stated (in the linked article which you obviously didn't read), that they will *not* licence their technology to anyone, period. They play a win/lose game and they don't dissemble about what they are after. They want HTC to stop using the patented technology and they will fight to the very end about this you can be certain. They aren't doing it for "leverage" or "cross-licensing" or any of that BS because they don't believe in that sort of thing and have said so explicitly many times over.
In the case of Nokia and others suing Apple, the counter-suit could be at least partially a bargaining position, but this case is one of those rare times when Apple actually outright attacks someone else. They don't do it casually (or at all mostly), and they mean it when they do it.
Most of the patents they cite are fairly ironclad, low-level OS patents that HTC will likely not be able to get out of. I'm sure they, like you, are probably expecting this is a tactic of some kind as it would be coming from almost any other company, but I'd bet money that it isn't.
Again, both Tim Cook and Steve Jobs have made explicit statements to that effect and based on their past behaviour, I believe them.
The Apple patent dates I saw (in the news articles) were 2008 and newer.
Then look again, most are from around 2000, and some go back to 1995.