I do, more than you in fact. Software patents were controversial at the start and continue to be, because they are an unnecessary evil that prevents innovation. Too many companies are filing software patents on other people's prior art, and because the patent offices are run in the interest of business, like so many other government entities, and no longer in the public interest, they are issuing patents to non-inventors. It's theft plain and simple. Patents were introduced as a legal concept not to protect business but to encourage innovation, but big business has subverted the process.
Why don't you dispense with the generalizations and just deal with the specifics?
There are software patents that are very valid, and there are those that are superficial and never should've been granted.
There are specific "big" businesses that have subverted the process, but so too have "small" businesses. And there are also legitimate patents by big businesses, just as there are for small businesses.
Your broad brush approach is ideological, and ignores whether the specific claims are valid or not. What's wrong with having a court decide it? That's what they are there for.
With regards to multi-touch, why hasn't Apple gone after Palm or Microsoft? Both use multitouch currently....
Smart people who have read the patents in question and are also lawyers have said repeatedly that the law suit is actually nothing to do with "multi-touch" per se and that only one of the twenty patents at issue even mentions it. Tech sites and news outlets on he other hand insist on portraying the battle as "Apple is suing over multi-touch."
So it's basically capitalism at work. The facts have no bearing on what the news agencies are reporting because they are after readership, not the facts. Coupled with the fact that everyone in the entire industry benefits materially from the lawsuit being seen as "Apple is suing over multi-touch," (apple too ironically), and you have a sort of perfect storm.
The fact is that Apple is suing over a series of very specific implementations of their technology and that it's mostly hardware implementations they are after. "Prior art" doesn't enter into it because we aren't talking really about a general assault on other companies using multi-touch, so all that Jeff Han stuff doesn't matter at all. Suing other companies doesn't come into it because again, they aren't trying to stop anyone from using multi-touch in general.
From what I've heard, in the 20 patents cited, the only mention of multi-touch is the pinch to zoom gesture, which has tons of prior art, nd is pointedly *not* patentable anyway.
If people insist on talking as if this is "about multi-touch" and "stopping anyone but Apple from using it," I'd like to see them point to anyone anywhere that's actually using multi-touch other than the aforementioned pinch to zoom.
There are patented aspects of Apple's UI for the iPhone that they thought of first, and that HTC has apparently copied. That doesn't mean that the law suit is really "about multi-touch."
From what I've heard, in the 20 patents cited, the only mention of multi-touch is the pinch to zoom gesture, which has tons of prior art, nd is pointedly *not* patentable anyway.
If people insist on talking as if this is "about multi-touch" and "stopping anyone but Apple from using it," I'd like to see them point to anyone anywhere that's actually using multi-touch other than the aforementioned pinch to zoom.
I think you've got it mixed up. Pinch to zoom is not in any of these claims. The unlock gesture implementation is the only direct multi-touch item in the claims.
No, let's not. Not until you form a cogent argument as to why it's not true.
Exactly how is Apple is like Microsoft? Qualifier: you cannot use any reasons that are part of the American or global corporate business environment or standard business methodologies to support your argument. Actions cannot be decried, for example, as "wrong" without a sound business or moral reason to support the charge. If it is done by a majority of corporate organizations, it is not applicable. Only those things which are uniquely Microsoft that Apple is allegedly mimicking. In other words, if it is standard business practice to do something, like volume purchasing to net a lower price point, it does not qualify. You also cannot anthropomorphize the two corporate entities. Terms like "bullying", "crying", "whining", etc. are anthropomorphic in nature.
I have a feeling you cannot do this to any real degree, but go ahead, prove me wrong.
I am also not a big patent expert nor a lawyer, but I don't think they can, (or are going to) sue Google at all.
I'm no lawyer either. I also hope Apple doesn't sue Google. I'm sure Apple hopes it doesn't have to sue Google, too, but I don't rule out the possibility.
Quote:
It seems to me that it would be a lot harder to make the case that Google's OS had infringed multi-touch given it's open source nature. As long as none of those involved in the coding are also involved with hardware, it's hard to make a linkage between the two.
Android OS being open source has virtually nothing to do with it. Apple might be able to add Google to the HTC lawsuit as a party who is helping HTC to infringe. Apple might first need to send a little warning letter to Google, though, informing them they need to check what type of hardware Android is running on before activating certain features. But this is speculation. I just wouldn't be at all surprised if a talented pool of lawyers can't find something that tripped Google.
Quote:
This is the same as Microsoft's many threats and lawsuits against open source in general. You don't sue the 1,000 faceless geeks who make Linux, you sue the corporation (which is your direct market competition anyway), that is selling the Linux boxes or using the Linux implementation that's in doubt. It's a much stronger case in general, and it also works as a simple threat to get them to stop using a "questionable" or possibly patent infringing solution.
I believe it's a much easier and stronger case against a corporation, because individuals might argue fair use and would constitute an amorphous, poorly defined target for a lawsuit, not because it isn't possible for individuals to infringe.
I do, more than you in fact. Software patents were controversial at the start and continue to be, because they are an unnecessary evil that prevents innovation. Too many companies are filing software patents on other people's prior art, and because the patent offices are run in the interest of business, like so many other government entities, and no longer in the public interest, they are issuing patents to non-inventors. It's theft plain and simple. Patents were introduced as a legal concept not to protect business but to encourage innovation, but big business has subverted the process.
More than me? In fact? Really? Could I ask you how you come to that conclusion? But please take your foot out of your mouth first.
So your view is that Apple should spend millions of dollars on suing a company that is probably going out of business all by itself as opposed to a company that allegedly is profiting greatly from Apple's patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
With regards to multi-touch, why hasn't Apple gone after Palm or Microsoft? Both use multitouch currently.
And Palm seems to be in a weeks position than HTC which would make them an easy "kill". HTC has the backing of Google, which means that Apple might be barking up the wrong tree.
Yes, but Windows, especially the first few versions, had real crappy implementations of many of the features Apple brought to market. That didn't stop people from buying PC because PCs were cheaper and WIndows was good enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JupiterOne
Wow, I wonder if the multi-touch implemented there is really that bad, or if Flash is pinging the CPU so much that it is that jerky. Either way, really awful scrolling and pinching compared to the iPhone.
Yes, but Windows, especially the first few versions, had real crappy implementations of many of the features Apple brought to market. That didn't stop people from buying PC because PCs were cheaper and WIndows was good enough.
And in the case of cell phone providers, it's all about choice. For the most part, they control what phones are "officially supported" on their network. In the US, the HTC Hero is available for Spirit and T-Mobile, if I'm not mistaken. A lot of people are tied in with contracts and if on those two networks the HTC Hero is one of the best phone in comparison to what's available and at a good price point, they will buy it.
The iPhone's exclusivity on AT&T is the problem. More people are more willing to buy a comparable on the same network than switch from one network to another, just for the sake of a phone. The CSRs throwing in offers left and right when you call to cancel doesn't help either.
Nope, Apple is suing because it believes the process it used is also being used by HTC.
So, Apple believes that there is only one implementation of of underclocking. The chance of an exact duplication of Apple's implementation assuming there are multiple iterations of such feature are infinitesimally small.
Or, Apple believes there is only one way to do it and is suing because of that violation.
Either way, Apple looks like a fool for including this as a patent violation.
Wasn't the microsoft Surface around before the iPhone? And that uses Multi-touch.
More than that though Apple should be incredibly careful about angering Google further. Google said they WILL backup HTC in this, and how would it make Apple look if Google maps died on the iPhone? Or GMail stopped working?
Steve should just get over his petty squables and start improving the iPhone, as it's 3 years old now and has barely changed since launch. (the app store being the only major change) The competition is ahead now, especially on the hardware side but (arguably) software too.
Wasn't the microsoft Surface around before the iPhone? And that uses Multi-touch.
More than that though Apple should be incredibly careful about angering Google further. Google said they WILL backup HTC in this, and how would it make Apple look if Google maps died on the iPhone? Or GMail stopped working?
Steve should just get over his petty squables and start improving the iPhone, as it's 3 years old now and has barely changed since launch. (the app store being the only major change) The competition is ahead now, especially on the hardware side but (arguably) software too.
I believe the MS Surface was started in 2001, completed in 2005, and unveiled in May, 2007.
As for Google's services on the iPhone, I don't think it'll be as cut and dry as you make it out to be. They can't deny users access to their Google accounts/services just because they own an iPhone. Since Google pays Apple to keep their search engine as the default on the iPhone, what could happen is Google will stop paying Apple the fee. It'll make it more difficult to get to Google's services, but not impossible (no direct icons). Apple will then be free to pick whatever search engine they want (Bing, most likely), but people will probably just go the route of opening Google in Mobile Safari.
Wasn't the microsoft Surface around before the iPhone? And that uses Multi-touch.
More than that though Apple should be incredibly careful about angering Google further. Google said they WILL backup HTC in this, and how would it make Apple look if Google maps died on the iPhone? Or GMail stopped working?
Steve should just get over his petty squables and start improving the iPhone, as it's 3 years old now and has barely changed since launch. (the app store being the only major change) The competition is ahead now, especially on the hardware side but (arguably) software too.
And you claim not to be a troll.
Yes, the iPhone has barely changed from launch.
Google pulling their software from the iPhone would be hilariously bad for Google and something they would not do. 40M+ mobile eyeballs no longer using Google search does hit them in the pocketbook.
Google pulling their software from the iPhone would be hilariously bad for Google and something they would not do. 40M+ mobile eyeballs no longer using Google search does hit them in the pocketbook.
Psst. News flash. There's such a thing as the address bar. You know, the one where you type in www.google.com?
No way in hell Apple would dare block that. If they ever did, I foresee 40M+ users screaming at Apple and maybe a class-action lawsuit or two.
Comments
I do, more than you in fact. Software patents were controversial at the start and continue to be, because they are an unnecessary evil that prevents innovation. Too many companies are filing software patents on other people's prior art, and because the patent offices are run in the interest of business, like so many other government entities, and no longer in the public interest, they are issuing patents to non-inventors. It's theft plain and simple. Patents were introduced as a legal concept not to protect business but to encourage innovation, but big business has subverted the process.
Why don't you dispense with the generalizations and just deal with the specifics?
There are software patents that are very valid, and there are those that are superficial and never should've been granted.
There are specific "big" businesses that have subverted the process, but so too have "small" businesses. And there are also legitimate patents by big businesses, just as there are for small businesses.
Your broad brush approach is ideological, and ignores whether the specific claims are valid or not. What's wrong with having a court decide it? That's what they are there for.
With regards to multi-touch, why hasn't Apple gone after Palm or Microsoft? Both use multitouch currently....
Smart people who have read the patents in question and are also lawyers have said repeatedly that the law suit is actually nothing to do with "multi-touch" per se and that only one of the twenty patents at issue even mentions it. Tech sites and news outlets on he other hand insist on portraying the battle as "Apple is suing over multi-touch."
So it's basically capitalism at work. The facts have no bearing on what the news agencies are reporting because they are after readership, not the facts. Coupled with the fact that everyone in the entire industry benefits materially from the lawsuit being seen as "Apple is suing over multi-touch," (apple too ironically), and you have a sort of perfect storm.
The fact is that Apple is suing over a series of very specific implementations of their technology and that it's mostly hardware implementations they are after. "Prior art" doesn't enter into it because we aren't talking really about a general assault on other companies using multi-touch, so all that Jeff Han stuff doesn't matter at all. Suing other companies doesn't come into it because again, they aren't trying to stop anyone from using multi-touch in general.
From what I've heard, in the 20 patents cited, the only mention of multi-touch is the pinch to zoom gesture, which has tons of prior art, nd is pointedly *not* patentable anyway.
If people insist on talking as if this is "about multi-touch" and "stopping anyone but Apple from using it," I'd like to see them point to anyone anywhere that's actually using multi-touch other than the aforementioned pinch to zoom.
There are patented aspects of Apple's UI for the iPhone that they thought of first, and that HTC has apparently copied. That doesn't mean that the law suit is really "about multi-touch."
From what I've heard, in the 20 patents cited, the only mention of multi-touch is the pinch to zoom gesture, which has tons of prior art, nd is pointedly *not* patentable anyway.
If people insist on talking as if this is "about multi-touch" and "stopping anyone but Apple from using it," I'd like to see them point to anyone anywhere that's actually using multi-touch other than the aforementioned pinch to zoom.
I think you've got it mixed up. Pinch to zoom is not in any of these claims. The unlock gesture implementation is the only direct multi-touch item in the claims.
No, let's not. Not until you form a cogent argument as to why it's not true.
Exactly how is Apple is like Microsoft? Qualifier: you cannot use any reasons that are part of the American or global corporate business environment or standard business methodologies to support your argument. Actions cannot be decried, for example, as "wrong" without a sound business or moral reason to support the charge. If it is done by a majority of corporate organizations, it is not applicable. Only those things which are uniquely Microsoft that Apple is allegedly mimicking. In other words, if it is standard business practice to do something, like volume purchasing to net a lower price point, it does not qualify. You also cannot anthropomorphize the two corporate entities. Terms like "bullying", "crying", "whining", etc. are anthropomorphic in nature.
I have a feeling you cannot do this to any real degree, but go ahead, prove me wrong.
I am also not a big patent expert nor a lawyer, but I don't think they can, (or are going to) sue Google at all.
I'm no lawyer either. I also hope Apple doesn't sue Google. I'm sure Apple hopes it doesn't have to sue Google, too, but I don't rule out the possibility.
It seems to me that it would be a lot harder to make the case that Google's OS had infringed multi-touch given it's open source nature. As long as none of those involved in the coding are also involved with hardware, it's hard to make a linkage between the two.
Android OS being open source has virtually nothing to do with it. Apple might be able to add Google to the HTC lawsuit as a party who is helping HTC to infringe. Apple might first need to send a little warning letter to Google, though, informing them they need to check what type of hardware Android is running on before activating certain features. But this is speculation. I just wouldn't be at all surprised if a talented pool of lawyers can't find something that tripped Google.
This is the same as Microsoft's many threats and lawsuits against open source in general. You don't sue the 1,000 faceless geeks who make Linux, you sue the corporation (which is your direct market competition anyway), that is selling the Linux boxes or using the Linux implementation that's in doubt. It's a much stronger case in general, and it also works as a simple threat to get them to stop using a "questionable" or possibly patent infringing solution.
I believe it's a much easier and stronger case against a corporation, because individuals might argue fair use and would constitute an amorphous, poorly defined target for a lawsuit, not because it isn't possible for individuals to infringe.
I do, more than you in fact. Software patents were controversial at the start and continue to be, because they are an unnecessary evil that prevents innovation. Too many companies are filing software patents on other people's prior art, and because the patent offices are run in the interest of business, like so many other government entities, and no longer in the public interest, they are issuing patents to non-inventors. It's theft plain and simple. Patents were introduced as a legal concept not to protect business but to encourage innovation, but big business has subverted the process.
More than me? In fact? Really? Could I ask you how you come to that conclusion? But please take your foot out of your mouth first.
Did Apple invent underclocking of CPUs?
Is there only one process that leads to underclocking of CPUs?
Is there only one process that leads to underclocking of CPUs?
It's included in the lawsuit, so apparently Apple believes that.
Apple is like the rich man who lives at the top of a hill.
But instead of being noble and kind, he keeps sending his attack dogs to maul anyone who tries to come up to greet him.
Did Apple invent underclocking of CPUs?
With regards to multi-touch, why hasn't Apple gone after Palm or Microsoft? Both use multitouch currently.
And Palm seems to be in a weeks position than HTC which would make them an easy "kill". HTC has the backing of Google, which means that Apple might be barking up the wrong tree.
Wow, I wonder if the multi-touch implemented there is really that bad, or if Flash is pinging the CPU so much that it is that jerky. Either way, really awful scrolling and pinching compared to the iPhone.
Yes, but Windows, especially the first few versions, had real crappy implementations of many of the features Apple brought to market. That didn't stop people from buying PC because PCs were cheaper and WIndows was good enough.
And in the case of cell phone providers, it's all about choice. For the most part, they control what phones are "officially supported" on their network. In the US, the HTC Hero is available for Spirit and T-Mobile, if I'm not mistaken. A lot of people are tied in with contracts and if on those two networks the HTC Hero is one of the best phone in comparison to what's available and at a good price point, they will buy it.
The iPhone's exclusivity on AT&T is the problem. More people are more willing to buy a comparable on the same network than switch from one network to another, just for the sake of a phone. The CSRs throwing in offers left and right when you call to cancel doesn't help either.
It's included in the lawsuit, so apparently Apple believes that.
Nope, Apple is suing because it believes the process it used is also being used by HTC.
Nope, Apple is suing because it believes the process it used is also being used by HTC.
So, Apple believes that there is only one implementation of of underclocking. The chance of an exact duplication of Apple's implementation assuming there are multiple iterations of such feature are infinitesimally small.
Or, Apple believes there is only one way to do it and is suing because of that violation.
Either way, Apple looks like a fool for including this as a patent violation.
More than that though Apple should be incredibly careful about angering Google further. Google said they WILL backup HTC in this, and how would it make Apple look if Google maps died on the iPhone? Or GMail stopped working?
Steve should just get over his petty squables and start improving the iPhone, as it's 3 years old now and has barely changed since launch. (the app store being the only major change) The competition is ahead now, especially on the hardware side but (arguably) software too.
Wasn't the microsoft Surface around before the iPhone? And that uses Multi-touch.
More than that though Apple should be incredibly careful about angering Google further. Google said they WILL backup HTC in this, and how would it make Apple look if Google maps died on the iPhone? Or GMail stopped working?
Steve should just get over his petty squables and start improving the iPhone, as it's 3 years old now and has barely changed since launch. (the app store being the only major change) The competition is ahead now, especially on the hardware side but (arguably) software too.
I believe the MS Surface was started in 2001, completed in 2005, and unveiled in May, 2007.
As for Google's services on the iPhone, I don't think it'll be as cut and dry as you make it out to be. They can't deny users access to their Google accounts/services just because they own an iPhone. Since Google pays Apple to keep their search engine as the default on the iPhone, what could happen is Google will stop paying Apple the fee. It'll make it more difficult to get to Google's services, but not impossible (no direct icons). Apple will then be free to pick whatever search engine they want (Bing, most likely), but people will probably just go the route of opening Google in Mobile Safari.
Wasn't the microsoft Surface around before the iPhone? And that uses Multi-touch.
More than that though Apple should be incredibly careful about angering Google further. Google said they WILL backup HTC in this, and how would it make Apple look if Google maps died on the iPhone? Or GMail stopped working?
Steve should just get over his petty squables and start improving the iPhone, as it's 3 years old now and has barely changed since launch. (the app store being the only major change) The competition is ahead now, especially on the hardware side but (arguably) software too.
And you claim not to be a troll.
Yes, the iPhone has barely changed from launch.
Google pulling their software from the iPhone would be hilariously bad for Google and something they would not do. 40M+ mobile eyeballs no longer using Google search does hit them in the pocketbook.
And you claim not to be a troll.
Yes, the iPhone has barely changed from launch.
Google pulling their software from the iPhone would be hilariously bad for Google and something they would not do. 40M+ mobile eyeballs no longer using Google search does hit them in the pocketbook.
Psst. News flash. There's such a thing as the address bar. You know, the one where you type in www.google.com?
No way in hell Apple would dare block that. If they ever did, I foresee 40M+ users screaming at Apple and maybe a class-action lawsuit or two.
Not to mention the concept of a bookmark.