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.
How is it FUD to point out that Google does not respect the law, particularly intellectual property law, when, in fact they clearly violated copyright law with their Google Books program. The only "FUD" here is the argument that, since copyrights aren't patents, Google's copyright law violations are irrelevant to whether they respect intellectual property law because Apple is suing HTC under patent law. Frankly, your argument is profoundly irrational.
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.
Since you used the word "only", you make it easy to refute. Tomi Ahonen, not an Apple fan-boy and not a media type with a hard-on for Apple products, and one who believes that Nokia is the true innovator and Apple not-so-much in the mobile space, declared soon after iPhone's intro that cellphone history would be demarcated as before-iPhone (B.I.) and after-iPhone (A.I.). (See http://communities-dominate.blogs.com)
The iPhone was revolutionary in the mobile space for its UI including a "real" and usable browser, and in its relationship to the carriers. Of course, the Blackberry was also revolutionary for making 24/7 email a usable reality.
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.
First - It's AppleInsider, which led him to understand that the frequency of factless rants in favor of Apple would be higher here than other places.
Second - to your request for proof, here's a nice counter: Show us the same sort of proof they DIDN'T copy the code. (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 isn't. But you know this of course, because your an expert on copyright.)
See how dumb the argument is? Your asking for proof of something you yourself can't refute with similar proof.
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.
Well, I would call opinions, not facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shubidua
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.
Yes, and years ago Motorola V3 had banners in every corner and in every major carrier. iPhone in Europe doesn't have change anything in the mobile industry.
Apple has every right to defend its patents. The iPhone, when introduced in 2007, was a revolutionary product that dramatically changed the cellphone industry. Now, Google/HTC want to rip-off Apple's intellectual property. All Apple is doing is protecting its property from being stolen. Without the use of patented features invented by Apple, Google's cellphone ambitions are dead in the water !!!
Where do you get this nonsense about internal statistics?
Sue H.T.C. but not sue Palm? Microsoft has had quite a few mobile designs out before & after that are similar to what's become the iphone Or is the real target google? Are they really upset over this or is this an attempt to slow done the Competition? I don't want to assume that readers here are slanted enough not to understand the the original, The touchscreen, is in fact not Apple. They didn't invent multitouch. Bell labs did in 85. "a multi-touch tablet" in fact. IBM created the first touch screen in the 1960's. PLATO 4 Computer terminal for education that had a touch interface. None of this can be an true "apple patent". Remember before Palm pilot's or Handsprings, the Digital Desk did in fact multi-finger gestures and pinching & zoom. Do we celebrate & pay respect to the original developers & company's behind these? No, There will be always something before, and someone better after. Apple doesn't stand a chance.
Apple & other company's before in court have tried to state they are the inventor's, (i.e. Lg) They both lost, they didn't invent it.
Oh, & that quote by Mr. Jobs "We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it". Again watch History. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
There was a rumour about a job posting some time ago which stated "bringing maps to the next level" or something like that, so they have something in work. However it would be stupid for google to stop working with apple.
Yeah, in retrospect, those stories about how Apple was developing it's own mapping application should have warned us that Apple was expecting the Google relationship to get more strained in the near future.
Because they haven't been convicted of that yet. Until that happens they are only "alleged" by the biased side of the suit of having done so. Stating anything otherwise is disingenuous at best. Plus you are not Google, so how do you know that they do not respect IP law? As a large public corporation, how could they not be with all of the regulation that public companies come under? As with Apple, they would be putting their investors, as well as their own, investments at risk by acting in such a manner. Besides, Google has never been convicted of an IP violation, at least nothing I can come up with a reasonable search. Apple has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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.
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.
And one more thing ... Silverlight for iPhone !
Maybe you are right. I have no idea if they will be able to work in one domain and fight in another. It would be the professional way to handle it, though I doubt many people would do so.
The only hope Apple has for not having their multi-touch patent shot down by "prior art" claims would be if it's so specifically defined in their patent that it can't be confused with the many previous implementations (which may well be what they're banking on).
But while that may sustain them legally, in terms of the principle of invention you've described here it makes Apple merely a refiner of an existing idea, not the originator.
It's worth pointing out that while the full multi-touch patent is included as one of the twenty, the majority of the claims are not related to multi-touch at all. Most of the 20 items are about low-level OS patents, object oriented programming stuff, and hardware.
They are certainly "trying out" that multi-touch patent but it isn't at the heart of the argument here and it might even be detrimental to Apple's future goals if absolutely no one else could legally do multi-touch. They can't support the entire platform by themselves. They can't get 100% of the world market for these types of devices.
To the degree that people describe Apple's actions here as "defending multi-touch" or something of that sort, they are wrong. In fact I would bet that Apple would be more than happy with an outcome where they win on all the patents *except* the multi-touch one, or an outcome where they win them all but are forced to *licence* multi-touch as part of the settlement.
They need other companies doing multi-touch and competing with them on the new mobile platform.
From my understanding it was more to do with John Sculley's signing a contract which licensed key parts of the Mac OS to Microsoft for Office development.
That's the way I remember it, too.
In re: to Xerox IP, AIR, there was some sort of payment/arrangement (stock?) from Apple to Xerox for use of their ideas in the Lisa and Mac.
Several Silicon Valley companies were founded on technologies developed a PARC: ethernet (3Com); PostScript (Adobe)...
Like others have speculated, the Nexus One was probably the tipping point and the enabling of multi-touch the last straw. Google has to have known that this was an eventuality as they made Android more and more iPhone like and created ChromeOS. I'm surprised at how big Apple went though.
Because they haven't been convicted of that yet. Until that happens they are only "alleged" by the biased side of the suit of having done so. Stating anything otherwise is disingenuous at best.
Mere sophistry on your part (seems to be a lot of that in this thread). It's a pretty clear cut case of copyright violation, so the only disingenuous argument here is one that attempts to obscure the facts with misapplied legal terms. The Google Books case isn't in the criminal courts, so there would be no "conviction" regardless of the outcome. By the, "biased side of the suit," I assume you mean the authors whose work they stole?
Quote:
Plus you are not Google, so how do you know that they do not respect IP law?
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.'
Google invented PageRank (U.S. Patent 6,285,999). If it were not an original invention it couldn't have been patented.
To clarify, I am not saying that Google invented search. No one invented search. All inventions related to search are inventions of processes for search. The invention of PageRank is not something that can or should be dismissed willy-nilly.
Are you seriously using this Tomi Ahonen: http://www.tomiahonen.com/ as an example? He's about as marketing/media spin artist as you can get and would say anything to get publicity. There are also people called "editors" who are known to add click getting excerpts that may or may not represent the context of what someone originally said. Also, blogs are not legitimate news sources (not that I would claim mainstream media to be much better), something they teach you during your first term in college.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
Since you used the word "only", you make it easy to refute. Tomi Ahonen, not an Apple fan-boy and not a media type with a hard-on for Apple products, and one who believes that Nokia is the true innovator and Apple not-so-much in the mobile space, declared soon after iPhone's intro that cellphone history would be demarcated as before-iPhone (B.I.) and after-iPhone (A.I.). (See http://communities-dominate.blogs.com)
The iPhone was revolutionary in the mobile space for its UI including a "real" and usable browser, and in its relationship to the carriers. Of course, the Blackberry was also revolutionary for making 24/7 email a usable reality.
Opera Mini or Mobile ? I have seen phones use these things, and honestly, it looked useless. Not saying mobile safari is the best or only, but I believe it was the first one implemented in a smart way with tab to zoom and analysis of the page content.
Seriously, do you even know what sophistry is, or did it come up during a Wikipedia search and you are just using it in every one of your posts to sound like your wicked smart?
I could post the "facts" of what the Google Books case really is and what the differences are between Patent, Copyright, and Trademark are, but it would fill up an entire discussion page and I'm sure no one else really wants to bother. Instead I'll just provide some links and the non-trolls can decide the merit of this nonsense debate for themselves:
Google Books case summary by the Columbia Law School:
Mere sophistry on your part (seems to be a lot of that in this thread). It's a pretty clear cut case of copyright violation, so the only disingenuous argument here is one that attempts to obscure the facts with misapplied legal terms. The Google Books case isn't in the criminal courts, so there would be no "conviction" regardless of the outcome. By the, "biased side of the suit," I assume you mean the authors whose work they stole?
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.
He doesn't believe in software patents. After saying that, there's basically no point in discussing this any further. Welcome to the world of copycats. Google would love it when some small shop takes Ad sense, Ad words, whatever Google has, and uses them to undercut Googles advertising rates.
Quote:
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.
Nokia-Apple is all about how much Apple pays for using GSM radios. It's just positioning. Apple has licensing agreements with Qualcomm and Ericcson, the other big patent parties in the GSM standards association, so, something went interesting with Nokia-Apple negotiations.
Quote:
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.
I'm quite surprised they went with the object-oriented patents. That's like a "WOW" moment. That's going way back.
Comments
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.
How is it FUD to point out that Google does not respect the law, particularly intellectual property law, when, in fact they clearly violated copyright law with their Google Books program. The only "FUD" here is the argument that, since copyrights aren't patents, Google's copyright law violations are irrelevant to whether they respect intellectual property law because Apple is suing HTC under patent law. Frankly, your argument is profoundly irrational.
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.
Since you used the word "only", you make it easy to refute. Tomi Ahonen, not an Apple fan-boy and not a media type with a hard-on for Apple products, and one who believes that Nokia is the true innovator and Apple not-so-much in the mobile space, declared soon after iPhone's intro that cellphone history would be demarcated as before-iPhone (B.I.) and after-iPhone (A.I.). (See http://communities-dominate.blogs.com)
The iPhone was revolutionary in the mobile space for its UI including a "real" and usable browser, and in its relationship to the carriers. Of course, the Blackberry was also revolutionary for making 24/7 email a usable reality.
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.
First - It's AppleInsider, which led him to understand that the frequency of factless rants in favor of Apple would be higher here than other places.
Second - to your request for proof, here's a nice counter: Show us the same sort of proof they DIDN'T copy the code. (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 isn't. But you know this of course, because your an expert on copyright.)
See how dumb the argument is? Your asking for proof of something you yourself can't refute with similar proof.
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.
Well, I would call opinions, not facts.
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.
Yes, and years ago Motorola V3 had banners in every corner and in every major carrier. iPhone in Europe doesn't have change anything in the mobile industry.
What a crock !!
Apple has every right to defend its patents. The iPhone, when introduced in 2007, was a revolutionary product that dramatically changed the cellphone industry. Now, Google/HTC want to rip-off Apple's intellectual property. All Apple is doing is protecting its property from being stolen. Without the use of patented features invented by Apple, Google's cellphone ambitions are dead in the water !!!
Where do you get this nonsense about internal statistics?
Sue H.T.C. but not sue Palm? Microsoft has had quite a few mobile designs out before & after that are similar to what's become the iphone Or is the real target google? Are they really upset over this or is this an attempt to slow done the Competition? I don't want to assume that readers here are slanted enough not to understand the the original, The touchscreen, is in fact not Apple. They didn't invent multitouch. Bell labs did in 85. "a multi-touch tablet" in fact. IBM created the first touch screen in the 1960's. PLATO 4 Computer terminal for education that had a touch interface. None of this can be an true "apple patent". Remember before Palm pilot's or Handsprings, the Digital Desk did in fact multi-finger gestures and pinching & zoom. Do we celebrate & pay respect to the original developers & company's behind these? No, There will be always something before, and someone better after. Apple doesn't stand a chance.
Apple & other company's before in court have tried to state they are the inventor's, (i.e. Lg) They both lost, they didn't invent it.
Oh, & that quote by Mr. Jobs "We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it". Again watch History. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
L
There was a rumour about a job posting some time ago which stated "bringing maps to the next level" or something like that, so they have something in work. However it would be stupid for google to stop working with apple.
Yeah, in retrospect, those stories about how Apple was developing it's own mapping application should have warned us that Apple was expecting the Google relationship to get more strained in the near future.
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.
And so the cold war between Apple and Google starts in earnest.
More of a real shootin war than a cold war.
The iPhone was revolutionary in the mobile space for its UI including a "real" and usable browser,
Opera Mobile, even with flash lite support
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.
And one more thing ... Silverlight for iPhone !
Maybe you are right. I have no idea if they will be able to work in one domain and fight in another. It would be the professional way to handle it, though I doubt many people would do so.
Do you believe Apple invented multi-touch?
The only hope Apple has for not having their multi-touch patent shot down by "prior art" claims would be if it's so specifically defined in their patent that it can't be confused with the many previous implementations (which may well be what they're banking on).
But while that may sustain them legally, in terms of the principle of invention you've described here it makes Apple merely a refiner of an existing idea, not the originator.
It's worth pointing out that while the full multi-touch patent is included as one of the twenty, the majority of the claims are not related to multi-touch at all. Most of the 20 items are about low-level OS patents, object oriented programming stuff, and hardware.
They are certainly "trying out" that multi-touch patent but it isn't at the heart of the argument here and it might even be detrimental to Apple's future goals if absolutely no one else could legally do multi-touch. They can't support the entire platform by themselves. They can't get 100% of the world market for these types of devices.
To the degree that people describe Apple's actions here as "defending multi-touch" or something of that sort, they are wrong. In fact I would bet that Apple would be more than happy with an outcome where they win on all the patents *except* the multi-touch one, or an outcome where they win them all but are forced to *licence* multi-touch as part of the settlement.
They need other companies doing multi-touch and competing with them on the new mobile platform.
From my understanding it was more to do with John Sculley's signing a contract which licensed key parts of the Mac OS to Microsoft for Office development.
That's the way I remember it, too.
In re: to Xerox IP, AIR, there was some sort of payment/arrangement (stock?) from Apple to Xerox for use of their ideas in the Lisa and Mac.
Several Silicon Valley companies were founded on technologies developed a PARC: ethernet (3Com); PostScript (Adobe)...
Because they haven't been convicted of that yet. Until that happens they are only "alleged" by the biased side of the suit of having done so. Stating anything otherwise is disingenuous at best.
Mere sophistry on your part (seems to be a lot of that in this thread). It's a pretty clear cut case of copyright violation, so the only disingenuous argument here is one that attempts to obscure the facts with misapplied legal terms. The Google Books case isn't in the criminal courts, so there would be no "conviction" regardless of the outcome. By the, "biased side of the suit," I assume you mean the authors whose work they stole?
Plus you are not Google, so how do you know that they do not respect IP law?
By their actions.
iPhone in Europe doesn't have change anything in the mobile industry.
Sorry, I don't get your point with this. Could you please be more clear ?
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.'
Google invented PageRank (U.S. Patent 6,285,999). If it were not an original invention it couldn't have been patented.
To clarify, I am not saying that Google invented search. No one invented search. All inventions related to search are inventions of processes for search. The invention of PageRank is not something that can or should be dismissed willy-nilly.
Since you used the word "only", you make it easy to refute. Tomi Ahonen, not an Apple fan-boy and not a media type with a hard-on for Apple products, and one who believes that Nokia is the true innovator and Apple not-so-much in the mobile space, declared soon after iPhone's intro that cellphone history would be demarcated as before-iPhone (B.I.) and after-iPhone (A.I.). (See http://communities-dominate.blogs.com)
The iPhone was revolutionary in the mobile space for its UI including a "real" and usable browser, and in its relationship to the carriers. Of course, the Blackberry was also revolutionary for making 24/7 email a usable reality.
Opera Mobile, even with flash lite support
Opera Mini or Mobile ? I have seen phones use these things, and honestly, it looked useless. Not saying mobile safari is the best or only, but I believe it was the first one implemented in a smart way with tab to zoom and analysis of the page content.
I could post the "facts" of what the Google Books case really is and what the differences are between Patent, Copyright, and Trademark are, but it would fill up an entire discussion page and I'm sure no one else really wants to bother. Instead I'll just provide some links and the non-trolls can decide the merit of this nonsense debate for themselves:
Google Books case summary by the Columbia Law School:
http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyri...rnments-brief/
IP Law:
http://www.lawmart.com/forms/difference.htm
Mere sophistry on your part (seems to be a lot of that in this thread). It's a pretty clear cut case of copyright violation, so the only disingenuous argument here is one that attempts to obscure the facts with misapplied legal terms. The Google Books case isn't in the criminal courts, so there would be no "conviction" regardless of the outcome. By the, "biased side of the suit," I assume you mean the authors whose work they stole?
By their actions.
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.
He doesn't believe in software patents. After saying that, there's basically no point in discussing this any further. Welcome to the world of copycats. Google would love it when some small shop takes Ad sense, Ad words, whatever Google has, and uses them to undercut Googles advertising rates.
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.
Nokia-Apple is all about how much Apple pays for using GSM radios. It's just positioning. Apple has licensing agreements with Qualcomm and Ericcson, the other big patent parties in the GSM standards association, so, something went interesting with Nokia-Apple negotiations.
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.
I'm quite surprised they went with the object-oriented patents. That's like a "WOW" moment. That's going way back.