Without reading all the trolling in this thread (not to you Quadra) companies have a right to protect their IP, you pay for not only the quality of the iPhone but the UE as well (user experience), if you create an amazing EU which apple has done and continues to do, why should you let someone come in and rip it off?
Google won't even release their search Algorithms with out court orders, it's their IP and they have a right to protect it. (just thought I would pop that reference in for the trolls)
I don't think anyone can argue with the point you just made, but the underlying fact still remains is that the courts still need to determine if what they say is true.
Multitouch for zooming in and out on pictures is the main thing that sticks out in my mind, and it might be enough to bring them to court over, but it's also something that can be artificially limited within the software and won't necessarily keep the phones from being sold in the US (which is what Apple's goal is, isn't it?)
I find it silly though to keep a phone from being sold in the US because of something so technical, and so trivial, that users might not even notice if it was there or not.
If this happens, I predict Apple will destroy Palm in a patent war. Apple will have counter patents for all things related to Palm.
Did you read the linked article? Palm's got patents that could do serious damage to Apple too. I think it's entirely feasible that Google would just buy Palm to use the IP as canon fodder to do as much damage to Apple's IP portfolio as possible. Who cares if they destroy Palm's patents in the process? Google being a fan of open source won't really care who copy's any of Palm's ideas vis-a-vis mobile operating systems. But for them the damage done to Apple in such a move could well be worthwhile.
Who knows? Maybe Apple will get to Palm first and either buy 'em out for the IP or start a pre-emptive IP war on that front.
You can patent a method of implementing that idea, as Apple has done and as Apple has alleged that HTC has copied.
Obviously Apple's implementation was sufficiently different to prior art, that the patents were granted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden
Better than reading a bunch of media spin, I read the actual patents at issue. None of which are unique to computing devices. The first half-dozen or so have to do with multi-touch or gesture-based computing, which as I pointed out in an earlier post was invented in 1986 by R.K. McConnell, well before Apple.
Most of the others have to do with object-oriented programming concepts, for which their are plenty of prior-art for going all the way back to the 1960s with Simula 67:
I swear we had this conversation a few months back lol. If you could patent an idea, people would be rushing to patent flying cars, and teleporters, and edible soda cans and whatever else people think the future would be made up of
Apple was accused of copying the design of Xerox's Star operating system, on which Xerox had copyright protection. Problem was Xerox waited 7 years to file and the judge determined that was too long a period to wait to bring a claim of copyright infringement. As the US Copyright office clearly states, you don't have to have a "registered" copyright to be protected, you automatically have copyright protection just by creating something. However registering makes it easier to enforce in court because it is an additional record of when the content was created. With copyrights, unlike patents, you have to vigorously defend them. The last article I read suggested you need to act within 6 months on a publicly distributed item that infringes your copyright to get protection from the court.
For some reason you seem stuck on "code". I said design. You can't copy code, only algorithms. If you write '<input type"button" />' and I write the same, it doesn't mean I copied your code - it's a standard tag in HTML, part of the programming language. However, if you create a program that performs a certain function unique to your application, it is usually pretty easy to tell whether I copied your program's design by the way I implement it in my program. In this case Apple copied the "Look and feel" of Xerox's system. You can't patent look and feel, but you can copyright it and that is what Xerox went after Apple on, though too late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
"It is common knowledge that both Apple and Microsoft got access to and copied features to technology invented by Xerox, HP, and others. "
Assuming you intended to use 'of' instead of 'to' (otherwise your sentence is meaningless), it is impossible read it in any other way.
I see your not a coding expert. I can assure you copying the 'design of the code' is quite meaningless. Or do you claim that Apple copied the looks and hardware of the Xerox with the Mac?
Creating code is incredibly detailed and impossible to copy unless you have .. an actual copy.
And if Xerox had an example of a copy of - part of - their code they could (and would) have sued Apple because that is a clear copyright case and probably even defendable if they didn't put a copyright notice in their source code. (And I'am pretty sure they had a default copyright notice in all of their source code, because thats standard practice.)
Consider this, Xerox is very knowledgeable about copyright and they got a clear copyright case, but didn't sue Apple, and didn't publish the information to at least embarrass Apple. That doesn't sound plausible at all.
I'am quite sure, your the one who is spreading FUD.
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.
So you read a book making this claim, yet the book fails to mention the actual legally binding documents between Apple and Xerox dealing with $1 Million pre-IPO shares given to Xerox in exchange for Apple to view their ideas?
Xerox made > $100 million when the stock went public. They didn't think Apple would be around long, so they sold all their stock the moment they could.
Their assumption was wrong.
One can always file a Freedom of Information request to figure out what happened between Apple and Xerox.
I'm sure there were many side deals made in those days. Like I said, companies flew pretty loose with IP in those days. However, the key word there is "look" not "copy". Is it as much Xerox's fault their IP was "adopted" by others, absolutely. The whole point of discussing the Xerox case and the present case was to show the difference between copyright protection and patent protection. You guys keep calling Xerox's creations "ideas" but it wasn't just an idea, they had and licensed an actual product based on the prototype Apple's engineers saw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
So you read a book making this claim, yet the book fails to mention the actual legally binding documents between Apple and Xerox dealing with $1 Million pre-IPO shares given to Xerox in exchange for Apple to view their ideas?
Xerox made > $100 million when the stock went public. They didn't think Apple would be around long, so they sold all their stock the moment they could.
Their assumption was wrong.
One can always file a Freedom of Information request to figure out what happened between Apple and Xerox.
Apparently you didn't read very well. He was saying that being here at this website, he understands that people who love Apple at a concerning level might allow that love to skew their statements to the point where baseless opinionated rants are being expressed as fact, and like the genius you are, you simply reply with something along the lines of "Well you're here aren't you?" which showed you completely missed the point.
I'm sure some people on the forum didn't mis the point. But you certainly have. (By the way my remark was: "Your 'on this site', so does that mean your an Apple fan-boy? ").
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
My argument was the same as your argument, so I'm glad we agree your argument was dumb.
No you missed the point again, my argument differs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
If you want him to "react for himself" then carry the conversation on in a PM, not a public forum where everyone is welcome to join in the discussion.
Didn't you read the question mark?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
Now listen, I didn't state anywhere that you said it was a fact. You know what a strawman argument is right? I was only replying to that single comment, and what you said would be viable evidence to support his argument. Reading skills might have something to do with your confusion, but I pin it more-so on the ability to reason.
Ha, I see your problem. I used an argument to invalidate your statement. I didn't say that you said that I stated my remarks as a fact.
My reasoning indicated that it wasn't valid to negate my statement and use it against me (you did make a mistake in negating it, but thats not really the point now).
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
Seriously, you missed my point entirely. Telling someone to go find the code that was copied and then have it analyzed by experts is OBVIOUSLY never going to happen, so for someone to tell you the SAME thing holds as much water.
If the claim is that it is common knowledge that Apple copied code from Xerox, then It must be easy to get this information, because it is common knowledge and obviously someone in the past has found the evidence and published it (in some way or the other).
If this information cannot be found easily then it is certain that this isn't common knowledge and as a consequence invalidates his statement.
And I can assure you that it is quite possible to find copied code within large codebases. And to have it examined by experts and be used as evidence in court cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
Person1: Apple copied code from Xerox.
Person2: Go find the code they copied.
Person1: Show me how their code is DIFFERENT from Xerox's.
See the point?
No, not at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
But anyways, this is all so silly. I know you think being rude for no reason on the internet is fun, but I find it moronic. Rather than reply to what I said like an adult, you attack my reading comprehension skills, use strawman arguments to make me look irrational, then completely disregard the point made entirely, and dismiss me saying he should answer for himself.
Have a good one.
Wow, that must be some kind of record.
But seriously, I didn't intend to be rude. And I think you shouldn't look at it like that.
At least we are going somewhere - so Apple has not necessarily stolen what they claim to be their creation. Now as to copying, the fact is that Xerox lost its case in court. Unless we are privy to the transcripts of the case (these are public if you wish to dig deeper), we cannot decide here whether there is merit to the case of the case of Xerox, and whether Apple has indeed made enough derivative innovations that would make its creation novel enough from the prior work.
As I argued above -- it is the intent of patent law to protect the invention of others but also to foster further development of prior technologies. So, copying or borrowing ideas from others, to be the foundation of succeeding inventions is encouraged and legal. If Apple simply copied the scripts and design of Xerox, that is another story.
Another issue as to your set of facts above. There is a rule in debates or exchange of ideas, Secondary information, such as those from newspapers are not necessarily accepted as facts. As reputable as NY Times might be, I have come to know that sometimes their reporters or writers do not know what they are talking about sometimes or are not immune to their own prejudices. I even cited inaccuracies in their technology articles. One of the authors even wrote to me because he did not fully understand the error, even after I explained the error in answer to his email.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden
It's difficult to compare the present case and the former case. As the article above points out, IP law was a lot weaker back then and companies got away with a lot more "casual" infringement. Just because Apple and Microsoft couldn't be held accountable for their actions, doesn't make them right. Also the former case was about copyrights (which is somewhat weaker IP than patents and has different coverage) not patents as is the present case.
I would encourage you therefore to stick to the present case, to bolster your allegations of the present. Past history may matter, but sometimes it obfuscates your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden
You don't have to have a patent to be covered under copyright or trademark law. However, your content/design has to fall under the coverage of these other IP laws. They each have their own place and can sometimes overlap.
This article discusses the current state of the patent system:
Again, I would encourage you to use original sources. Surely, you can cite an online copy of the patent law. But, correct me if I am mistaken. As far as I know, while the laws governing patents, copyright and trademark may be covered by the same act of Congress. How they work are entirely different.
Copyright. It has to be in public domain (published), or an "application" sent to the Patent Office to have any protection. The public has the right to know and access to records of prior creations.
Not all published work are copyrighted. For example, the contents of the telephone book is not protected by Copyright. [This issue has been litigated already.] However, the design of the presentation may be copyrighted.
Computer codes may be copyrighted but it has to be published or submitted to the Patents Office. If Apple simply copied the entire computer code or significant parts of it, then it would be a violation. If the Xerox scripts were not under copyright protection, even if Apple copied the entire code, they are not technically in violation of the law. As far as I know, Xerox did not win their case. What exactly happened we both do not know based on the information you presented to bolster your argument.
Another limitation of the copyright. It is the content of the copyrighted material that is protected. However, the idea there is not. Also, an idea is not patentable. As such, a derivative creations or invention from copyrighted materials can be patented, without violating the copyringted material (assuming no scripts were copied verbatim, if it was a computer program).
Trademark. Any design, name or creation must be registered to be protected by a trademark.
Patent. We and others already explored this. It is not against the law to build upon prior inventions, to get a derivative patents for ones own unique creation.
Reverse engineering is a common practice. If HTC or any of those creating iPhone clones can demonstrate a novel discovery or investion to achieve the same stuff that Apple did with the iPhone, then they may well have a case. On the other hand, Apple's application, if I remember the posts oof the patents posted here and in other sites, they also ennsured protection of the totality of the look and feel
that resulted in the unique interaction of a user to the iPhone. That totality may be protectedd by a trademark.
If you are familiar with the language of patent application, apart from the prior technologies section, anyone that applies for a patent would attempt to include encompassing (primary) claims and more specific (derivative) claims to define the creation or invention. So, even a single patent,. once approved can affect the patents of future derivative inventions and creations.
Apple was accused of copying the design of Xerox's Star operating system, on which Xerox had copyright protection.
Being accused of something and proof of the claim is not the same to me. So I assume there is no proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden
Problem was Xerox waited 7 years to file and the judge determined that was too long a period to wait to bring a claim of copyright infringement. As the US Copyright office clearly states, you don't have to have a "registered" copyright to be protected, you automatically have copyright protection just by creating something. However registering makes it easier to enforce in court because it is an additional record of when the content was created. With copyrights, unlike patents, you have to vigorously defend them. The last article I read suggested you need to act within 6 months on a publicly distributed item that infringes your copyright to get protection from the court.
For some reason you seem stuck on "code". I said design. You can't copy code, only algorithms. If you write '<input type"button" />' and I write the same, it doesn't mean I copied your code - it's a standard tag in HTML, part of the programming language. However, if you create a program that performs a certain function unique to your application, it is usually pretty easy to tell whether I copied your program's design by the way I implement it in my program. In this case Apple copied the "Look and feel" of Xerox's system. You can't patent look and feel, but you can copyright it and that is what Xerox went after Apple on, though too late.
All I can say is that copyright is about an exact copy, for example a paragraph from a book, or a part of code that is exactly (of nearly exact because only some names are changed) the same.
It is maybe possible to patent an algorithm, but thats the same as patenting an idea.
Many patents involved are generic OS patents which may go far beyond the Linux-as-used-by-Android but perhaps to general Linux as well which will be a huge income potential for Apple, if Apple does win this case. Microsoft was threatening the Linux in a similar manner before.
It seems to work now. And I think the following quote from the article explains it all:
'The Xerox complaint seems to confuse the distinction between ideas and expression; copyright protects expression, not ideas,'' said Stacey Byrnes, an Apple spokeswoman. ''Apple intends to prove in court that the audio-visual expressions in the Lisa and Macintosh interfaces were wholly original to Apple and duly registered with the copyright office.''
Dude, I'm honestly not going to read any of that LOL.
Arguing for the sake of arguing is dumb. My point has been made clear, and is a valid one. Anything beyond that is just nonsense.
I SAY GOOD DAY SIR
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
I'm sure some people on the forum didn't mis the point. But you certainly have. (By the way my remark was: "Your 'on this site', so does that mean your an Apple fan-boy? ").
No you missed the point again, my argument differs.
Didn't you read the question mark?
Ha, I see your problem. I used an argument to invalidate your statement. I didn't say that you said that I stated my remarks as a fact.
My reasoning indicated that it wasn't valid to negate my statement and use it against me (you did make a mistake in negating it, but thats not really the point now).
If the claim is that it is common knowledge that Apple copied code from Xerox, then It must be easy to get this information, because it is common knowledge and obviously someone in the past has found the evidence and published it (in some way or the other).
If this information cannot be found easily then it is certain that this isn't common knowledge and as a consequence invalidates his statement.
And I can assure you that it is quite possible to find copied code within large codebases. And to have it examined by experts and be used as evidence in court cases.
No, not at all.
Wow, that must be some kind of record.
But seriously, I didn't intend to be rude. And I think you shouldn't look at it like that.
If Opera Mobile was such a usable browser, how come it has continually failed to register any real presence in NetApplications or AdMob metrics? If you know of some metrics that shows its use, be sure to let me know.
Opera Mobile was nice and functional as a browser (props to them) but without multi-touch, it's just not used by many people. Part of it certainly is the lack of distribution, but then that just means that carriers and handset makers found little consumer desire for them to bundle it in.
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.
Yes, that's the guy. I don't know him personally, but he writes many published books and is an invited speaker to many mobile gatherings across many nations.
So I'd say he's much more of an expert than you, about whom I know nothing.
If Opera Mobile was such a usable browser, how come it has continually failed to register any real presence in NetApplications or AdMob metrics? If you know of some metrics that shows its use, be sure to let me know.
Opera Mobile was nice and functional as a browser (props to them) but without multi-touch, it's just not used by many people. Part of it certainly is the lack of distribution, but then that just means that carriers and handset makers found little consumer desire for them to bundle it in.
The same can be said about the desktop version and the poor market share doesn't meens that it wasn't a good a full featured browser.
Bad memory, Opera mobile user-agent string is like the one from the desktop browser
I've just read that Apple is actually looking for an injunction against all the named phones in their lawsuit. Which means a block on importing, marketing, advertising, demonstrating, warehousing inventory for distribution, distributing, or offering for sale.
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 wouldn't be surprised if Apple also asks the court to force HTC to have any and all infringing items be removed from existing HTC smartphones not mentioned in the suit via a OTA update.
It does give off the feeling that Apple is threatened... This move would not just slow smartphone competition (as it would if Apple is simply successful on the lawsuit alone), it would outright kill competition in the US market, as most of those phones are the main competitors to Apple.
I'm with you on that one.
I also have feeling competition is catching up faster than Apple is progressing. One of Apple's problems, the way I see it, is that it's development is actually limited by their own rules and rigidly set borders of what is allowed and what is not - something competition (part of it, at least) isn't limited with.
A year ago, Apple was untouchable with iPhone. Same time this year, Android platform, while not as polished as iPhone, already has some advantages, and Windows 7 Mobile can turn out to be heavy weight contender as well.
And somehow, I don't see iPhone OS (or iPhone itself) geting that much different with version 4. I wouldn't expect 3rd party multitasking, full GPS navigation included, Flash... I can't see them making any huge changes in the GUI as well, nor breaking iTunes-only syncing limitation. I hope I'm wrong and Apple actually will surprise us with some fresh, unexpected and exciting/useful new features, but... I just don't see that happening.
I'm not saying Apple is really scared, but they are definitely more... aware of competition at present, and being able to slow them at least is not bad strategy - purely from business side of view, of course.
Comments
But they didn't actually create search or maps.
Without reading all the trolling in this thread (not to you Quadra) companies have a right to protect their IP, you pay for not only the quality of the iPhone but the UE as well (user experience), if you create an amazing EU which apple has done and continues to do, why should you let someone come in and rip it off?
Google won't even release their search Algorithms with out court orders, it's their IP and they have a right to protect it. (just thought I would pop that reference in for the trolls)
I don't think anyone can argue with the point you just made, but the underlying fact still remains is that the courts still need to determine if what they say is true.
Multitouch for zooming in and out on pictures is the main thing that sticks out in my mind, and it might be enough to bring them to court over, but it's also something that can be artificially limited within the software and won't necessarily keep the phones from being sold in the US (which is what Apple's goal is, isn't it?)
I find it silly though to keep a phone from being sold in the US because of something so technical, and so trivial, that users might not even notice if it was there or not.
If this happens, I predict Apple will destroy Palm in a patent war. Apple will have counter patents for all things related to Palm.
Did you read the linked article? Palm's got patents that could do serious damage to Apple too. I think it's entirely feasible that Google would just buy Palm to use the IP as canon fodder to do as much damage to Apple's IP portfolio as possible. Who cares if they destroy Palm's patents in the process? Google being a fan of open source won't really care who copy's any of Palm's ideas vis-a-vis mobile operating systems. But for them the damage done to Apple in such a move could well be worthwhile.
Who knows? Maybe Apple will get to Palm first and either buy 'em out for the IP or start a pre-emptive IP war on that front.
You can patent a method of implementing that idea, as Apple has done and as Apple has alleged that HTC has copied.
Obviously Apple's implementation was sufficiently different to prior art, that the patents were granted.
Better than reading a bunch of media spin, I read the actual patents at issue. None of which are unique to computing devices. The first half-dozen or so have to do with multi-touch or gesture-based computing, which as I pointed out in an earlier post was invented in 1986 by R.K. McConnell, well before Apple.
Most of the others have to do with object-oriented programming concepts, for which their are plenty of prior-art for going all the way back to the 1960s with Simula 67:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-...amming#History
One other notable claim was on reducing processor power for certain instructions, which I imagine Intel might have some prior-art to...
So yeah, I do know what I am talking about and can bring some actual research to the discussion to expand upon my points. No trolling going on here...
You can't patent an idea.
I swear we had this conversation a few months back lol. If you could patent an idea, people would be rushing to patent flying cars, and teleporters, and edible soda cans and whatever else people think the future would be made up of
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/bu...e+xerox&st=nyt
Apple was accused of copying the design of Xerox's Star operating system, on which Xerox had copyright protection. Problem was Xerox waited 7 years to file and the judge determined that was too long a period to wait to bring a claim of copyright infringement. As the US Copyright office clearly states, you don't have to have a "registered" copyright to be protected, you automatically have copyright protection just by creating something. However registering makes it easier to enforce in court because it is an additional record of when the content was created. With copyrights, unlike patents, you have to vigorously defend them. The last article I read suggested you need to act within 6 months on a publicly distributed item that infringes your copyright to get protection from the court.
For some reason you seem stuck on "code". I said design. You can't copy code, only algorithms. If you write '<input type"button" />' and I write the same, it doesn't mean I copied your code - it's a standard tag in HTML, part of the programming language. However, if you create a program that performs a certain function unique to your application, it is usually pretty easy to tell whether I copied your program's design by the way I implement it in my program. In this case Apple copied the "Look and feel" of Xerox's system. You can't patent look and feel, but you can copyright it and that is what Xerox went after Apple on, though too late.
"It is common knowledge that both Apple and Microsoft got access to and copied features to technology invented by Xerox, HP, and others. "
Assuming you intended to use 'of' instead of 'to' (otherwise your sentence is meaningless), it is impossible read it in any other way.
I see your not a coding expert. I can assure you copying the 'design of the code' is quite meaningless. Or do you claim that Apple copied the looks and hardware of the Xerox with the Mac?
Creating code is incredibly detailed and impossible to copy unless you have .. an actual copy.
And if Xerox had an example of a copy of - part of - their code they could (and would) have sued Apple because that is a clear copyright case and probably even defendable if they didn't put a copyright notice in their source code. (And I'am pretty sure they had a default copyright notice in all of their source code, because thats standard practice.)
Consider this, Xerox is very knowledgeable about copyright and they got a clear copyright case, but didn't sue Apple, and didn't publish the information to at least embarrass Apple. That doesn't sound plausible at all.
I'am quite sure, your the one who is spreading FUD.
J
You can't patent an idea.
You can patent a method of implementing that idea, as Apple has done and as Apple has alleged that HTC has copied.
Obviously Apple's implementation was sufficiently different to prior art, that the patents were granted.
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.
So you read a book making this claim, yet the book fails to mention the actual legally binding documents between Apple and Xerox dealing with $1 Million pre-IPO shares given to Xerox in exchange for Apple to view their ideas?
Xerox made > $100 million when the stock went public. They didn't think Apple would be around long, so they sold all their stock the moment they could.
Their assumption was wrong.
One can always file a Freedom of Information request to figure out what happened between Apple and Xerox.
So you read a book making this claim, yet the book fails to mention the actual legally binding documents between Apple and Xerox dealing with $1 Million pre-IPO shares given to Xerox in exchange for Apple to view their ideas?
Xerox made > $100 million when the stock went public. They didn't think Apple would be around long, so they sold all their stock the moment they could.
Their assumption was wrong.
One can always file a Freedom of Information request to figure out what happened between Apple and Xerox.
Apparently you didn't read very well. He was saying that being here at this website, he understands that people who love Apple at a concerning level might allow that love to skew their statements to the point where baseless opinionated rants are being expressed as fact, and like the genius you are, you simply reply with something along the lines of "Well you're here aren't you?" which showed you completely missed the point.
I'm sure some people on the forum didn't mis the point. But you certainly have. (By the way my remark was: "Your 'on this site', so does that mean your an Apple fan-boy? ").
My argument was the same as your argument, so I'm glad we agree your argument was dumb.
No you missed the point again, my argument differs.
If you want him to "react for himself" then carry the conversation on in a PM, not a public forum where everyone is welcome to join in the discussion.
Didn't you read the question mark?
Now listen, I didn't state anywhere that you said it was a fact. You know what a strawman argument is right? I was only replying to that single comment, and what you said would be viable evidence to support his argument. Reading skills might have something to do with your confusion, but I pin it more-so on the ability to reason.
Ha, I see your problem. I used an argument to invalidate your statement. I didn't say that you said that I stated my remarks as a fact.
My reasoning indicated that it wasn't valid to negate my statement and use it against me (you did make a mistake in negating it, but thats not really the point now).
Seriously, you missed my point entirely. Telling someone to go find the code that was copied and then have it analyzed by experts is OBVIOUSLY never going to happen, so for someone to tell you the SAME thing holds as much water.
If the claim is that it is common knowledge that Apple copied code from Xerox, then It must be easy to get this information, because it is common knowledge and obviously someone in the past has found the evidence and published it (in some way or the other).
If this information cannot be found easily then it is certain that this isn't common knowledge and as a consequence invalidates his statement.
And I can assure you that it is quite possible to find copied code within large codebases. And to have it examined by experts and be used as evidence in court cases.
Person1: Apple copied code from Xerox.
Person2: Go find the code they copied.
Person1: Show me how their code is DIFFERENT from Xerox's.
See the point?
No, not at all.
But anyways, this is all so silly. I know you think being rude for no reason on the internet is fun, but I find it moronic. Rather than reply to what I said like an adult, you attack my reading comprehension skills, use strawman arguments to make me look irrational, then completely disregard the point made entirely, and dismiss me saying he should answer for himself.
Have a good one.
Wow, that must be some kind of record.
But seriously, I didn't intend to be rude. And I think you shouldn't look at it like that.
J
Sorry, "stole" is too strong a description, but they definitely copied elements of Xerox's design:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/bu...e+xerox&st=nyt
At least we are going somewhere - so Apple has not necessarily stolen what they claim to be their creation. Now as to copying, the fact is that Xerox lost its case in court. Unless we are privy to the transcripts of the case (these are public if you wish to dig deeper), we cannot decide here whether there is merit to the case of the case of Xerox, and whether Apple has indeed made enough derivative innovations that would make its creation novel enough from the prior work.
As I argued above -- it is the intent of patent law to protect the invention of others but also to foster further development of prior technologies. So, copying or borrowing ideas from others, to be the foundation of succeeding inventions is encouraged and legal. If Apple simply copied the scripts and design of Xerox, that is another story.
Another issue as to your set of facts above. There is a rule in debates or exchange of ideas, Secondary information, such as those from newspapers are not necessarily accepted as facts. As reputable as NY Times might be, I have come to know that sometimes their reporters or writers do not know what they are talking about sometimes or are not immune to their own prejudices. I even cited inaccuracies in their technology articles. One of the authors even wrote to me because he did not fully understand the error, even after I explained the error in answer to his email.
It's difficult to compare the present case and the former case. As the article above points out, IP law was a lot weaker back then and companies got away with a lot more "casual" infringement. Just because Apple and Microsoft couldn't be held accountable for their actions, doesn't make them right. Also the former case was about copyrights (which is somewhat weaker IP than patents and has different coverage) not patents as is the present case.
I would encourage you therefore to stick to the present case, to bolster your allegations of the present. Past history may matter, but sometimes it obfuscates your argument.
You don't have to have a patent to be covered under copyright or trademark law. However, your content/design has to fall under the coverage of these other IP laws. They each have their own place and can sometimes overlap.
This article discusses the current state of the patent system:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4788834/
Again, I would encourage you to use original sources. Surely, you can cite an online copy of the patent law. But, correct me if I am mistaken. As far as I know, while the laws governing patents, copyright and trademark may be covered by the same act of Congress. How they work are entirely different.
Copyright. It has to be in public domain (published), or an "application" sent to the Patent Office to have any protection. The public has the right to know and access to records of prior creations.
Not all published work are copyrighted. For example, the contents of the telephone book is not protected by Copyright. [This issue has been litigated already.] However, the design of the presentation may be copyrighted.
Computer codes may be copyrighted but it has to be published or submitted to the Patents Office. If Apple simply copied the entire computer code or significant parts of it, then it would be a violation. If the Xerox scripts were not under copyright protection, even if Apple copied the entire code, they are not technically in violation of the law. As far as I know, Xerox did not win their case. What exactly happened we both do not know based on the information you presented to bolster your argument.
Another limitation of the copyright. It is the content of the copyrighted material that is protected. However, the idea there is not. Also, an idea is not patentable. As such, a derivative creations or invention from copyrighted materials can be patented, without violating the copyringted material (assuming no scripts were copied verbatim, if it was a computer program).
Trademark. Any design, name or creation must be registered to be protected by a trademark.
Patent. We and others already explored this. It is not against the law to build upon prior inventions, to get a derivative patents for ones own unique creation.
Reverse engineering is a common practice. If HTC or any of those creating iPhone clones can demonstrate a novel discovery or investion to achieve the same stuff that Apple did with the iPhone, then they may well have a case. On the other hand, Apple's application, if I remember the posts oof the patents posted here and in other sites, they also ennsured protection of the totality of the look and feel
that resulted in the unique interaction of a user to the iPhone. That totality may be protectedd by a trademark.
If you are familiar with the language of patent application, apart from the prior technologies section, anyone that applies for a patent would attempt to include encompassing (primary) claims and more specific (derivative) claims to define the creation or invention. So, even a single patent,. once approved can affect the patents of future derivative inventions and creations.
CGC
CGC
Here, read the article for yourself that details the Xerox case:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/bu...e+xerox&st=nyt
Page not found. Do you have another link?
Apple was accused of copying the design of Xerox's Star operating system, on which Xerox had copyright protection.
Being accused of something and proof of the claim is not the same to me. So I assume there is no proof.
Problem was Xerox waited 7 years to file and the judge determined that was too long a period to wait to bring a claim of copyright infringement. As the US Copyright office clearly states, you don't have to have a "registered" copyright to be protected, you automatically have copyright protection just by creating something. However registering makes it easier to enforce in court because it is an additional record of when the content was created. With copyrights, unlike patents, you have to vigorously defend them. The last article I read suggested you need to act within 6 months on a publicly distributed item that infringes your copyright to get protection from the court.
For some reason you seem stuck on "code". I said design. You can't copy code, only algorithms. If you write '<input type"button" />' and I write the same, it doesn't mean I copied your code - it's a standard tag in HTML, part of the programming language. However, if you create a program that performs a certain function unique to your application, it is usually pretty easy to tell whether I copied your program's design by the way I implement it in my program. In this case Apple copied the "Look and feel" of Xerox's system. You can't patent look and feel, but you can copyright it and that is what Xerox went after Apple on, though too late.
All I can say is that copyright is about an exact copy, for example a paragraph from a book, or a part of code that is exactly (of nearly exact because only some names are changed) the same.
It is maybe possible to patent an algorithm, but thats the same as patenting an idea.
J.
Page not found. Do you have another link?
It seems to work now. And I think the following quote from the article explains it all:
'The Xerox complaint seems to confuse the distinction between ideas and expression; copyright protects expression, not ideas,'' said Stacey Byrnes, an Apple spokeswoman. ''Apple intends to prove in court that the audio-visual expressions in the Lisa and Macintosh interfaces were wholly original to Apple and duly registered with the copyright office.''
J.
Arguing for the sake of arguing is dumb. My point has been made clear, and is a valid one. Anything beyond that is just nonsense.
I SAY GOOD DAY SIR
I'm sure some people on the forum didn't mis the point. But you certainly have. (By the way my remark was: "Your 'on this site', so does that mean your an Apple fan-boy? ").
No you missed the point again, my argument differs.
Didn't you read the question mark?
Ha, I see your problem. I used an argument to invalidate your statement. I didn't say that you said that I stated my remarks as a fact.
My reasoning indicated that it wasn't valid to negate my statement and use it against me (you did make a mistake in negating it, but thats not really the point now).
If the claim is that it is common knowledge that Apple copied code from Xerox, then It must be easy to get this information, because it is common knowledge and obviously someone in the past has found the evidence and published it (in some way or the other).
If this information cannot be found easily then it is certain that this isn't common knowledge and as a consequence invalidates his statement.
And I can assure you that it is quite possible to find copied code within large codebases. And to have it examined by experts and be used as evidence in court cases.
No, not at all.
Wow, that must be some kind of record.
But seriously, I didn't intend to be rude. And I think you shouldn't look at it like that.
J
Don't bother. You are using words that the fellow won't understand.
And you know that because you are poor fellow's... foster parent? School psychologist? Shrink? Priest?
Opera Mobile, even with flash lite support
If Opera Mobile was such a usable browser, how come it has continually failed to register any real presence in NetApplications or AdMob metrics? If you know of some metrics that shows its use, be sure to let me know.
Opera Mobile was nice and functional as a browser (props to them) but without multi-touch, it's just not used by many people. Part of it certainly is the lack of distribution, but then that just means that carriers and handset makers found little consumer desire for them to bundle it in.
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.
Yes, that's the guy. I don't know him personally, but he writes many published books and is an invited speaker to many mobile gatherings across many nations.
So I'd say he's much more of an expert than you, about whom I know nothing.
I don't know about tap to zoom, but most of the "gestures" that make up modern multi-touch technology were invented by R.K. McConnell in 1986:
http://www.merl.com/papers/TR94-03/
And in which phone were they implemented before 2007?
If Opera Mobile was such a usable browser, how come it has continually failed to register any real presence in NetApplications or AdMob metrics? If you know of some metrics that shows its use, be sure to let me know.
Opera Mobile was nice and functional as a browser (props to them) but without multi-touch, it's just not used by many people. Part of it certainly is the lack of distribution, but then that just means that carriers and handset makers found little consumer desire for them to bundle it in.
The same can be said about the desktop version and the poor market share doesn't meens that it wasn't a good a full featured browser.
Bad memory, Opera mobile user-agent string is like the one from the desktop browser
I've just read that Apple is actually looking for an injunction against all the named phones in their lawsuit. Which means a block on importing, marketing, advertising, demonstrating, warehousing inventory for distribution, distributing, or offering for sale.
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 wouldn't be surprised if Apple also asks the court to force HTC to have any and all infringing items be removed from existing HTC smartphones not mentioned in the suit via a OTA update.
It does give off the feeling that Apple is threatened... This move would not just slow smartphone competition (as it would if Apple is simply successful on the lawsuit alone), it would outright kill competition in the US market, as most of those phones are the main competitors to Apple.
I'm with you on that one.
I also have feeling competition is catching up faster than Apple is progressing. One of Apple's problems, the way I see it, is that it's development is actually limited by their own rules and rigidly set borders of what is allowed and what is not - something competition (part of it, at least) isn't limited with.
A year ago, Apple was untouchable with iPhone. Same time this year, Android platform, while not as polished as iPhone, already has some advantages, and Windows 7 Mobile can turn out to be heavy weight contender as well.
And somehow, I don't see iPhone OS (or iPhone itself) geting that much different with version 4. I wouldn't expect 3rd party multitasking, full GPS navigation included, Flash... I can't see them making any huge changes in the GUI as well, nor breaking iTunes-only syncing limitation. I hope I'm wrong and Apple actually will surprise us with some fresh, unexpected and exciting/useful new features, but... I just don't see that happening.
I'm not saying Apple is really scared, but they are definitely more... aware of competition at present, and being able to slow them at least is not bad strategy - purely from business side of view, of course.