Every single one of those existed before Android was released on a device.
Side question
Given the possibility/probability that Schmidt was "undercover" while at Apple; and given that Android and most of its hardware iterations copied Apple property rights, does anyone know or conjecture that Apple will at some point unleash the lawyers on Schmidt/Google? Or will they be content to sue Samsung/HTC?
Apple Not Innovating?!?!? If Not for Apple's Innovation There would be NO ANDROID. While was Apple was innovating Schmidt was on the Apple Board of Directors and stealing ideas from Apple thus Android!
Given the possibility/probability that Schmidt was "undercover" while at Apple; and given that Android and most of its hardware iterations copied Apple property rights, does anyone know or conjecture that Apple will at some point unleash the lawyers on Schmidt/Google? Or will they be content to sue Samsung/HTC?
It's easier to sue a hardware manufacturer, because that has the potential big hammer of the ITC disallowing imports.
The point that you're both missing is that before the iPhone came out, Android phones looked like a cheap copy of the Blackberry.
After the iPhone came out, Android started looking like a copy of iOS.
Before iPhone came out, Android phones looked like ...?
Really? I admit I missed that. So did Google. So did Apple. So did everyone else who thought the first Android phone came out in late 2008, after the iPhone. So, can we see a picture of this crappy pre-iPhone Android phone?
Given the possibility/probability that Schmidt was "undercover" while at Apple; and given that Android and most of its hardware iterations copied Apple property rights, does anyone know or conjecture that Apple will at some point unleash the lawyers on Schmidt/Google? Or will they be content to sue Samsung/HTC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecameramanny
Apple Not Innovating?!?!? If Not for Apple's Innovation There would be NO ANDROID. While was Apple was innovating Schmidt was on the Apple Board of Directors and stealing ideas from Apple thus Android!
Similar to the "Macintosh/Windows" war!
The more you try to depict Schmidt was a spy stealing secrets from Apple, the more you are making out Apple executives to be idiots who were easily duped. Is that what you all think? Personally, I have more respect for Apple than that. After all, I find it hard to believe such easily duped executives could turn out such an amazingly successful quarter. Either that, or Schmidt was brilliant (and ergo, not an idiot). Which is it?
That SJ comment is classic example of his "distortion of reality field". As far as I know, Apple never produced any mobile phones (except the joint product with Motorola). They never made public that they are developing iPhone until it was announced, so they entered the mobile business in that January 2007 keynote.
On the other hand, the information that Android, a creator of mobile OS, has been acquired by Google was public information since 2005, so technically, Google entered the mobile business before Apple and thus it might be ES pissed at SJ, not other way around.
As said earlier, the only great thing about the patent lawsuits is that majority of those ridiculous patents get voided by the court. Boy they patented it, but they know both multitouch and pinch-to-zoom is prior art and will be primal candidate for such dismissal, if ever brought to court.
You're pretty damned sure of yourself but that doesn't mean shit to me unless you can prove that you are either Steve J., Eric S. or a patent lawyer who has worked directly with the cases you have mentioned.
So keep spouting bullshit if you want but to me it just sounds like blah blah blah until you can prove some credentials to me.
And by this logic we can confidently predict that Apple will never innovate. After all, no matter what they do we can just claim that it was the next obvious step and they just happened to get there a little sooner. And who can prove that wrong? We can't generate a control world with a different history to check.
For that matter we can conclude that no one innovates anywhere, ever, since we can always fall back on "was gong to happen anyway, someone just happened to be first" without fear of alt universe contradiction. Which renders it meaningless, of course, but it must be a comfort to the credulous and weak minded.
Google's approach to IP is different, partly because they are primarily a server side firm. Mostly rather than patent something such as their search-rank algorithm, they will prefer to keep it as a trade secret. They do have patents for example on MapReduce, but most of their IP crown jewels like BigTable and GFS are closely held secrets.
Actually they wont patent the algorithm BECAUSE it would be to easy to do it some other way(go around). Its better for them that you dont KNOW the algorithm so you will have to do the same research and trial by error as they have done over the years.
I think they do have some patents on search though. Googles search algo is constantly changing and is largely also politics so it reminds me more of coca cola and a recipe. Its not worth getting int patented if its too easy to go copy parts and go around infringing the patent so its not applicable. Its not just largely known how they sort their searches. There are a lot of info on this on the web but it definately is not the whole truth... As an advertising seller also money and politics seem to matter (atleast the money side:Google has had to admit this, they have denied it for a very long time).
Mere mortals such as us will never know what really transpired in the boardrooms, and who knew what when. I guess I just believe that if Steve Jobs felt comfortable saying, "And boy, have we patented it!" in the 2007 iPhone keynote, he must have felt pretty justified that Apple was bringing something new to the table.
The point that you're both missing is that before the iPhone came out, Android phones looked like a cheap copy of the Blackberry.
After the iPhone came out, Android started looking like a copy of iOS.
The point you are missing is that one leaked photo of single prototype of early Android device doesn't define the entire product. There were other prototypes, including ones with full touch screen. This is no invention of Apple, not by far. I used to have Symbian phone with touch screen long before iPhone.
Android had a full touch screen mode from the day one.
Make no mistake, I still consider iPhone a breakthrough product that affected all of the competition. It proved that phone with large touch screen will be accepted well by masses, if done right. This is nothing that can be patented, though.
You're pretty damned sure of yourself but that doesn't mean shit to me unless you can prove that you are either Steve J., Eric S. or a patent lawyer who has worked directly with the cases you have mentioned.
So keep spouting bullshit if you want but to me it just sounds like blah blah blah until you can prove some credentials to me.
Don't have to be SJ or ES or lawyer or anyone else. Just check the facts. Android acquired by Google in 2005, this information available to public. Rubin is known as author of another mobile phone, so it is known that Google is in mobile business from 2005.
iPhone was made available to public during the Keynote in 2007. Prior that there were no mobile phones produced by Apple.
Those are the facts.
Was it really Apple's business ? I think it wasn't.
And by this logic we can confidently predict that Apple will never innovate. After all, no matter what they do we can just claim that it was the next obvious step and they just happened to get there a little sooner. And who can prove that wrong? We can't generate a control world with a different history to check.
For that matter we can conclude that no one innovates anywhere, ever, since we can always fall back on "was gong to happen anyway, someone just happened to be first" without fear of alt universe contradiction. Which renders it meaningless, of course, but it must be a comfort to the credulous and weak minded.
Were you sleeping thru your logic classes at University?
Comments
The point that you're both missing is that before the iPhone came out, Android phones looked like a cheap copy of the Blackberry.
After the iPhone came out, Android started looking like a copy of iOS.
And that's a surprise? Which mobile phone OS didn't transition to a touchscreen w/gestures? It's not as tho it wasn't a logical next step.
And that's a surprise? Which mobile phone OS didn't transition to a touchscreen w/gestures? It's not as tho it wasn't a logical next step.
Then why is it that no one did it until after the iPhone came out?
Then why is it that no one did it until after the iPhone came out?
Because they were the first?
Every single one of those existed before Android was released on a device.
Side question
Given the possibility/probability that Schmidt was "undercover" while at Apple; and given that Android and most of its hardware iterations copied Apple property rights, does anyone know or conjecture that Apple will at some point unleash the lawyers on Schmidt/Google? Or will they be content to sue Samsung/HTC?
Similar to the "Macintosh/Windows" war!
Side question
Given the possibility/probability that Schmidt was "undercover" while at Apple; and given that Android and most of its hardware iterations copied Apple property rights, does anyone know or conjecture that Apple will at some point unleash the lawyers on Schmidt/Google? Or will they be content to sue Samsung/HTC?
It's easier to sue a hardware manufacturer, because that has the potential big hammer of the ITC disallowing imports.
But I thought Facebook was also the enemy du jour since they're making an app to bypass the app store.
Man, with so many perceived enemies to hate it must make an Apple zealot's head cave in trying to keep 'em all straight.
How thoughtful of you to take the time to keep track of the cares of "Apple zealots".
The point that you're both missing is that before the iPhone came out, Android phones looked like a cheap copy of the Blackberry.
After the iPhone came out, Android started looking like a copy of iOS.
Before iPhone came out, Android phones looked like ...?
Really? I admit I missed that. So did Google. So did Apple. So did everyone else who thought the first Android phone came out in late 2008, after the iPhone. So, can we see a picture of this crappy pre-iPhone Android phone?
Side question
Given the possibility/probability that Schmidt was "undercover" while at Apple; and given that Android and most of its hardware iterations copied Apple property rights, does anyone know or conjecture that Apple will at some point unleash the lawyers on Schmidt/Google? Or will they be content to sue Samsung/HTC?
Apple Not Innovating?!?!? If Not for Apple's Innovation There would be NO ANDROID. While was Apple was innovating Schmidt was on the Apple Board of Directors and stealing ideas from Apple thus Android!
Similar to the "Macintosh/Windows" war!
The more you try to depict Schmidt was a spy stealing secrets from Apple, the more you are making out Apple executives to be idiots who were easily duped. Is that what you all think? Personally, I have more respect for Apple than that. After all, I find it hard to believe such easily duped executives could turn out such an amazingly successful quarter. Either that, or Schmidt was brilliant (and ergo, not an idiot). Which is it?
That SJ comment is classic example of his "distortion of reality field". As far as I know, Apple never produced any mobile phones (except the joint product with Motorola). They never made public that they are developing iPhone until it was announced, so they entered the mobile business in that January 2007 keynote.
On the other hand, the information that Android, a creator of mobile OS, has been acquired by Google was public information since 2005, so technically, Google entered the mobile business before Apple and thus it might be ES pissed at SJ, not other way around.
As said earlier, the only great thing about the patent lawsuits is that majority of those ridiculous patents get voided by the court. Boy they patented it, but they know both multitouch and pinch-to-zoom is prior art and will be primal candidate for such dismissal, if ever brought to court.
You're pretty damned sure of yourself but that doesn't mean shit to me unless you can prove that you are either Steve J., Eric S. or a patent lawyer who has worked directly with the cases you have mentioned.
So keep spouting bullshit if you want but to me it just sounds like blah blah blah until you can prove some credentials to me.
Because they were the first?
And by this logic we can confidently predict that Apple will never innovate. After all, no matter what they do we can just claim that it was the next obvious step and they just happened to get there a little sooner. And who can prove that wrong? We can't generate a control world with a different history to check.
For that matter we can conclude that no one innovates anywhere, ever, since we can always fall back on "was gong to happen anyway, someone just happened to be first" without fear of alt universe contradiction. Which renders it meaningless, of course, but it must be a comfort to the credulous and weak minded.
It didn't work in the other thread and it's not going to fly here either...
Yeah, what does it even mean anyway?
Google's approach to IP is different, partly because they are primarily a server side firm. Mostly rather than patent something such as their search-rank algorithm, they will prefer to keep it as a trade secret. They do have patents for example on MapReduce, but most of their IP crown jewels like BigTable and GFS are closely held secrets.
Actually they wont patent the algorithm BECAUSE it would be to easy to do it some other way(go around). Its better for them that you dont KNOW the algorithm so you will have to do the same research and trial by error as they have done over the years.
I think they do have some patents on search though. Googles search algo is constantly changing and is largely also politics so it reminds me more of coca cola and a recipe. Its not worth getting int patented if its too easy to go copy parts and go around infringing the patent so its not applicable. Its not just largely known how they sort their searches. There are a lot of info on this on the web but it definately is not the whole truth... As an advertising seller also money and politics seem to matter (atleast the money side:Google has had to admit this, they have denied it for a very long time).
The point that you're both missing is that before the iPhone came out, Android phones looked like a cheap copy of the Blackberry.
After the iPhone came out, Android started looking like a copy of iOS.
The point you are missing is that one leaked photo of single prototype of early Android device doesn't define the entire product. There were other prototypes, including ones with full touch screen. This is no invention of Apple, not by far. I used to have Symbian phone with touch screen long before iPhone.
Android had a full touch screen mode from the day one.
Make no mistake, I still consider iPhone a breakthrough product that affected all of the competition. It proved that phone with large touch screen will be accepted well by masses, if done right. This is nothing that can be patented, though.
You're pretty damned sure of yourself but that doesn't mean shit to me unless you can prove that you are either Steve J., Eric S. or a patent lawyer who has worked directly with the cases you have mentioned.
So keep spouting bullshit if you want but to me it just sounds like blah blah blah until you can prove some credentials to me.
Don't have to be SJ or ES or lawyer or anyone else. Just check the facts. Android acquired by Google in 2005, this information available to public. Rubin is known as author of another mobile phone, so it is known that Google is in mobile business from 2005.
iPhone was made available to public during the Keynote in 2007. Prior that there were no mobile phones produced by Apple.
Those are the facts.
Was it really Apple's business ? I think it wasn't.
And by this logic we can confidently predict that Apple will never innovate. After all, no matter what they do we can just claim that it was the next obvious step and they just happened to get there a little sooner. And who can prove that wrong? We can't generate a control world with a different history to check.
For that matter we can conclude that no one innovates anywhere, ever, since we can always fall back on "was gong to happen anyway, someone just happened to be first" without fear of alt universe contradiction. Which renders it meaningless, of course, but it must be a comfort to the credulous and weak minded.
Were you sleeping thru your logic classes at University?