Nonsense, that's your only purpose for being here and that's exactly what you are doing in this thread. Just because you haven't mentioned it by name doesn't mean that's not what you're doing. Of course, we can't expect honesty from a shill.
A US company going out of its way to assist a non-US company to compate against a US company for the sake of selling more advertisements. Couldn't imagine that given the state of teh US economy and high un-employmebnt rate that this news will go down well if it becomes highly publicised.
True or false: Nokia owned FRAND patents that Apple used in a phone they HAD in the market?
True or false: you can't sue someone after they licensed the patents from you, even if you wanted a better price.
Also true: Apple offered to pay FRAND before the iPhone release and Nokia wanted much more than FRAND rates along with intellectual property to which Apple refused and said then sue me. Court case ensues and the settlement is less money than Apple had put aside to pay Nokia.
Also true: Apple offered to pay FRAND before the iPhone release and Nokia wanted much more than FRAND rates along with intellectual property to which Apple refused and said then sue me. Court case ensues and the settlement is less money than Apple had put aside to pay Nokia.
And that changes my original statement how? In fact, I said almost EXACTLY the same thing.
Can you link to where it shows it was less? From what I remember it was an undisclosed amount
And that changes my original statement how? In fact, I said almost EXACTLY the same thing.
Can you link to where it shows it was less? From what I remember it was an undisclosed amount
I'm sorry. When you said "refusing to pay" I thought you meant AT ALL and not what happened in reality which was refusing to pay THAT AMOUNT. As for the amount, most reports have it at $600M which is around $10 a phone.
Also true: Apple offered to pay FRAND before the iPhone release and Nokia wanted much more than FRAND rates along with intellectual property to which Apple refused and said then sue me. Court case ensues and the settlement is less money than Apple had put aside to pay Nokia.
Do you have any source, other than an Apple claim, that Nokia was trying to extort higher licensing fees than they were entitled to? I'm not trying to say it didn't happen, but I've never seen anything confirming the claim made by an Apple lawyer.
Do you have any source, other than an Apple claim, that Nokia was trying to extort higher licensing fees than they were entitled to? I'm not trying to say it didn't happen, but I've never seen anything confirming the claim made by an Apple lawyer.
Gator, I'm getting ready for work but will look into it, but considering it took two years for Nokia to take them to court (meaning negotiations had to have been ongoing between 2007-2008) and the fact that lawyers can't straight up lie in court (if Apple made that claim in court it would be required to turn over any related emails in the negotiation AND Nokia would have to disclose what it charges others), I tend to believe it. Especially since Apple never made any statements that it didn't infringe (HTC and Samsung have made those statements in their respective lawsuits).
Gator, I'm getting ready for work but will look into it, but considering it took two years for Nokia to take them to court (meaning negotiations had to have been ongoing between 2007-2008) and the fact that lawyers can't straight up lie in court (if Apple made that claim in court it would be required to turn over any related emails in the negotiation AND Nokia would have to disclose what it charges others), I tend to believe it. Especially since Apple never made any statements that it didn't infringe (HTC and Samsung have made those statements in their respective lawsuits).
Certainly could all be true, but I got the impression that between Apple's countersuit and Nokia, that the holdup was Nokia's wish to cross-license some patents. I didn't see that licensing fees were much in disagreement and thus more a red herring to garner sympathy than anything.
Apple originally denied it infringed on any of the Nokia patents, then went on to say that even if it might appear they had, the Nokia patents weren't valid anyway, thus unenforceable. Those Apple claims were still being made when they filed their countersuit that Nokia was the one infringing on Apple patents, not the other way around. That doesn't sound like a company willing to pay fair/FRAND licensing fees.
Apple's Multi-tasking is basically a modified version of what Android does (it follows the same basic policies as Android's implementation but with stricter rules about WHAT can run in the background (certain type of data only).
This is simply not true by any stretch of the imagination. There are some similarities on the outside that the two implementations share with a million others, but technically they are nothing like each other. In fact, the whole life cycle management of iOS applications and the way they can multitask is completely intertwined, which is almost orthogonal to the way it works on Android, where preemptive multitasking is the norm, and suspend/resume to RAM/Flash is the exception.
Using the multitasking implementations of iOS and Android to demonstrate how everyone 'borrows' ideas from everyone (which I actually agree with) is about the worst example you could make. The multitasking implementation in iOS is actually pretty unique, I've never seen anything like it in any other OS, desktop or mobile. You may not like it because it is more limited than other systems, but it's most definitely not copied from something else.
Quote:
Apple's new notification system pulled features from Android, WebOS, and from Jailbreak Devs.
The old iOS notification system was actually so crappy it's almost unbelievable Apple didn't re-do it with the 2nd generation iOS devices. Now they replaced it with a solution that has been commonplace in millions of other OS's. RIM, WebOS, Android, even some WM phones had it, and many desktop OS's have had similar notification tray plugins for over a decade. The whole idea of a notification tray has converged to an almost 'optimal' solution long ago, and Apple is simply implementing that idea later than everyone else. Pointing to Android to show how Apple 'stole' the notification system is really kind of dumb, it just goes to show how little else you can think of to support your argument that Apple copied Android.
Quote:
Apple released iMessage, a program that borrows heavily from the idea of BBM, but ads the awesome ability to automatically detect if the person you're messaging is an iOS5 user so you don't have to switch between it and a "standard" texting program.
iMessage is just another stupid example of something that has existed for decades, even before the first smartphones. I never heard anyone say that BBM was a ripoff of ICQ or anything, even though it's exactly the same. Just like with the notification system, Apple is simply adding a blatantly obvious feature that was new and innovative in the 90's, it has nothing to do with copying BlackBerry. Apple is simply reacting to the popularity of SMS, BBM, WhatsApp, whatever, with their own totally obvious implementation of the same idea.
Quote:
This adaptation does NOT make Apple less innovative or their products any less amazing. As I said, this is how business works. The problem is now companies are patenting EVERYTHING because they're convinced that every new idea should be their exclusively for 15 YEARS. Realistically, companies were patenting everything because other companies were patenting everything and it became almost a cold war where these companies built up massive war chest so that they could continue releasing new products without fear of a lawsuit.
Companies are patenting everything for one reason only: because if they don't, they are vulnerable to litigation. It has literally nothing to do with having exclusivity of innovations or whatever. It's pocket change to protect against competitors and patent trolls trying to parasite on your success.
Quote:
A company defending against counterfeiters is fine, and it should be done because knock-offs like that can destroy a brand image. But Apple's going after companies because they let the user unlock a touchscreen device using the touchscreen. (slide to unlock) And now everyone is suing everyone else over patents that range from pointless to patents that are "well duh" type things (as in, everyone uses it everywhere already)
All this does is waste money paying lawyers and creates an insanely high barrier to entry for new companies. There are so many broad patents out there that it's practically impossible to create anything that does violate at least a few (a smartphone is over a quarter million at least). It's telling that when Apple first started suing HTC, the commentary wasn't on how valid the patents were, but rather how HTC was at a disadvantage because they had so few patents to countersue apple with.
How is a system based off of the assumption that everyone is violating patents (and that's what gives them their value) a productive one?
I agree with most of this, the system is rotten, and Apple is no saint here either, in fact they have been acting like a bunch of d*cks on multiple occasions, and I don't like it. Apple doesn't need patent litigation to be competitive.
That said, in the whole Apple vs. Android and specifically Apple vs. Samsung, I completely understand why Apple is going in full-force, legally. The last few years it's almost insulting how blatantly Samsung but also for example Acer are ripping off Apple products, both the hardware and the software. I honestly can't imagine anyone denying this is true, no matter how much you hate Apple. These companies are simply trying to get a free ride on the wave of success that Apple has created with products like the iPhone, iOS, the iPad and the MacBook Air.
So when Google assists HTC it's all <jimbo accent>"dey took arr jobs"</jimbo>. But when Apple does all their manufacturing in China, it's business as usual? For a "global philosopher", you're rather narrow-minded.
Manufacturing in China is what allows Apple to sell at high margins. Apple makes more profits that way.
This is simply not true by any stretch of the imagination. There are some similarities on the outside that the two implementations share with a million others, but technically they are nothing like each other. In fact, the whole life cycle management of iOS applications and the way they can multitask is completely intertwined, which is almost orthogonal to the way it works on Android, where preemptive multitasking is the norm, and suspend/resume to RAM/Flash is the exception.
Using the multitasking implementations of iOS and Android to demonstrate how everyone 'borrows' ideas from everyone (which I actually agree with) is about the worst example you could make. The multitasking implementation in iOS is actually pretty unique, I've never seen anything like it in any other OS, desktop or mobile. You may not like it because it is more limited than other systems, but it's most definitely not copied from something else.
Suspend/resume is the norm. If something keeps running in the background (since 2.0) it MUST put an icon in the notification tray. Kinda like Navigation shows that it's always on on iOS. For MOST apps, when you hit the home key, or the search key, or switch apps, it suspends it and doesn't consume ANYTHING else in the background.
Where you're getting confused is that Android allows devices to start themselves up in the background, to "wake" the device to pull information (news apps and twitter clients, for example) after they do this, the app suspends itself again. It's not "constantly" running in the background.
So yes, apple's implementation is VERY similar, but it has higher restrictions. That doesn't make it a totally different implementation. Google does allow entire apps to work in the background, but most developers don't do this because they know it's pointless to do so and just leads to higher battery drain (and thus lower marks in the market)
Quote:
The old iOS notification system was actually so crappy it's almost unbelievable Apple didn't re-do it with the 2nd generation iOS devices. Now they replaced it with a solution that has been commonplace in millions of other OS's. RIM, WebOS, Android, even some WM phones had it, and many desktop OS's have had similar notification tray plugins for over a decade. The whole idea of a notification tray has converged to an almost 'optimal' solution long ago, and Apple is simply implementing that idea later than everyone else. Pointing to Android to show how Apple 'stole' the notification system is really kind of dumb, it just goes to show how little else you can think of to support your argument that Apple copied Android.
It's their implementation of it that's the adoption, not that they did away with a crappy system.
The notification itself (the pop over bar) that appears and then goes away is VERY similar to what you see in iOS. And then you can access the notification by pulling down the status bar, that lists all your notifications in a tray.
RIM puts icons in the status bar area, but you have to open individual applications to see what's going on. I haven't used a windows mobile OS device since the Q, so I'm not sure how they handle it.
Notifications that don't suck IS the industry standard, but sticking them in a tray (where you can preview them without entering the app) or having them pop up on the edge of a screen with the preview are both pretty unique and identifiable methods.
again, I am NOT saying there is anything wrong with them doing this.
Quote:
iMessage is just another stupid example of something that has existed for decades, even before the first smartphones. I never heard anyone say that BBM was a ripoff of ICQ or anything, even though it's exactly the same. Just like with the notification system, Apple is simply adding a blatantly obvious feature that was new and innovative in the 90's, it has nothing to do with copying BlackBerry. Apple is simply reacting to the popularity of SMS, BBM, WhatsApp, whatever, with their own totally obvious implementation of the same idea.
The difference with BBM though is that it's not cross platform. It's something that is exclusive to BBOS devices. Like iMessage will be exclusive to iOS (and possibly OSX) it's used as a form of "lockin" more than something like ICQ could.
There are a ton of people who hesitated switching from a Berry because of BBM. The same can't be said about ICQ, but it WILL be said about imessage (especially with carriers doing away with limited data plans)
Suspend/resume is the norm. If something keeps running in the background (since 2.0) it MUST put an icon in the notification tray. Kinda like Navigation shows that it's always on on iOS. For MOST apps, when you hit the home key, or the search key, or switch apps, it suspends it and doesn't consume ANYTHING else in the background.
Where you're getting confused is that Android allows devices to start themselves up in the background, to "wake" the device to pull information (news apps and twitter clients, for example) after they do this, the app suspends itself again. It's not "constantly" running in the background.
So yes, apple's implementation is VERY similar, but it has higher restrictions. That doesn't make it a totally different implementation. Google does allow entire apps to work in the background, but most developers don't do this because they know it's pointless to do so and just leads to higher battery drain (and thus lower marks in the market)
This is all looking from the user perspective. From the developer perspective, the way iOS provides multitasking is completely different from Android. Both have a very comparable way of managing the application lifecycle (start, stop, and suspend/resume), but iOS has had this since day 1, so it definitely didn't copy it from Android. With iOS 4, Apple integrated a multitasking API into the iOS application lifecycle management in a way that is totally specific to iOS.
The way applications interact with the OS if they want to multitask are technically incomparable to any other OS I know. This is not just about how iOS puts certain restrictions on what a background application can do (which is something only iOS does this way as well), but also about how backgrounding an application relates to terminating or suspending it, how an application transitions between these states and what actually happens when an iOS application goes into the background. Effectively, when you implement multitasking into an iOS app, the application itself doesn't actually run in the background, instead it gets suspended as usual after registering a piece code tied to an OS callback. The UI and every other aspect of the application could actually be unloaded from RAM if necessary, with just the code and data the developer explicitly installed for backgrounding remaining active.
No matter how you look at it, it's decidedly different from how Android does it. The Android multitasking implementation is much more straightforward. This makes it more flexible, but this flexibility comes at cost: you either don't multitask (ie: use only suspend/resume), or you do full-on multitasking (at the cost of RAM and CPU cycles, and yes: even a 'sleeping'/waiting multitasked application takes CPU cycles and battery, because it wakes the CPU from idle at regular intervals). I'm not saying one is 'better' than the other, but they are definitely very different, on a technical level.
I'm no patent expert, but I assume there is no legal precedent like this:
-- You can only sue for patent infringement of patents you actually own at the time of the alleged infringement. --
Seems like this type of standard would make the gifting of patents or purchase of companies for their patents less appealing. Such actions might protect you going forward, but wouldn't help your past actions.
For example, in this case the patents "gifted" to HTC would protect future hardware, but since they didn't own them at the time of the original alleged infringement, they'd still be open to legal action on devices manufactured/sold up until the time of the patent "gift".
Anyone with more knowledge of the patent/legal system have any thoughts or comments?
They still created the product and sold it (and profited from it) without licensing the patents. Looks a lot like "refusing" to pay to me.
Well, putting FRAND license rate funds in escrow during the several year negotiation period before the lawsuit says otherwise. You can rail at the logic and fact all you want, but it doesn't make you right.
Well, putting FRAND license rate funds in escrow during the several year negotiation period before the lawsuit says otherwise. You can rail at the logic and fact all you want, but it doesn't make you right.
Did they pay the money to those companies before they released the product?
That's what I'm saying.
They said "we don't like your terms, so if you want the money, sue us."
The question if they put money aside to pay has no bearing on that. Yes, because they were FRAND they had an idea for how much they were expected to pay. But that doesn't change the fact that they DIDN'T pay until Nokia took them to court over it.
Did they pay the money to those companies before they released the product?
That's what I'm saying.
They said "we don't like your terms, so if you want the money, sue us."
The question if they put money aside to pay has no bearing on that. Yes, because they were FRAND they had an idea for how much they were expected to pay. But that doesn't change the fact that they DIDN'T pay until Nokia took them to court over it.
Not only refused to pay, but claimed in their counterclaim that they were not infringing on the Nokia patents to begin with, they weren't valid patents anyway, and it was Nokia who was the patent infringer, not the other way around.
Does that sound like a company that was plainly willing to pay for a license to the IP?
Comments
Try reading and researching the facts before making a comment that shows how much you really don't know.
I'm glad you posted this because I had no idea what he was talking about.
Haven't defended Android in this thread yet. ...
Nonsense, that's your only purpose for being here and that's exactly what you are doing in this thread. Just because you haven't mentioned it by name doesn't mean that's not what you're doing. Of course, we can't expect honesty from a shill.
Try reading and researching the facts before making a comment that shows how much you really don't know.
Oh, he knows, it's his job to misrepresent the truth here.
A US company going out of its way to assist a non-US company to compate against a US company for the sake of selling more advertisements. Couldn't imagine that given the state of teh US economy and high un-employmebnt rate that this news will go down well if it becomes highly publicised.
Ah, the irony.....
(Cue the "but Apple outsources US jobs" card.)
Try reading and researching the facts before making a comment that shows how much you really don't know.
Really? And what facts would those be?
True or false: Nokia owned FRAND patents that Apple used in a phone they HAD in the market?
True or false: you can't sue someone after they licensed the patents from you, even if you wanted a better price.
Really? And what facts would those be?
True or false: Nokia owned FRAND patents that Apple used in a phone they HAD in the market?
True or false: you can't sue someone after they licensed the patents from you, even if you wanted a better price.
Also true: Apple offered to pay FRAND before the iPhone release and Nokia wanted much more than FRAND rates along with intellectual property to which Apple refused and said then sue me. Court case ensues and the settlement is less money than Apple had put aside to pay Nokia.
Also true: Apple offered to pay FRAND before the iPhone release and Nokia wanted much more than FRAND rates along with intellectual property to which Apple refused and said then sue me. Court case ensues and the settlement is less money than Apple had put aside to pay Nokia.
And that changes my original statement how? In fact, I said almost EXACTLY the same thing.
Can you link to where it shows it was less? From what I remember it was an undisclosed amount
And that changes my original statement how? In fact, I said almost EXACTLY the same thing.
Can you link to where it shows it was less? From what I remember it was an undisclosed amount
I'm sorry. When you said "refusing to pay" I thought you meant AT ALL and not what happened in reality which was refusing to pay THAT AMOUNT. As for the amount, most reports have it at $600M which is around $10 a phone.
Also true: Apple offered to pay FRAND before the iPhone release and Nokia wanted much more than FRAND rates along with intellectual property to which Apple refused and said then sue me. Court case ensues and the settlement is less money than Apple had put aside to pay Nokia.
Do you have any source, other than an Apple claim, that Nokia was trying to extort higher licensing fees than they were entitled to? I'm not trying to say it didn't happen, but I've never seen anything confirming the claim made by an Apple lawyer.
Do you have any source, other than an Apple claim, that Nokia was trying to extort higher licensing fees than they were entitled to? I'm not trying to say it didn't happen, but I've never seen anything confirming the claim made by an Apple lawyer.
Gator, I'm getting ready for work but will look into it, but considering it took two years for Nokia to take them to court (meaning negotiations had to have been ongoing between 2007-2008) and the fact that lawyers can't straight up lie in court (if Apple made that claim in court it would be required to turn over any related emails in the negotiation AND Nokia would have to disclose what it charges others), I tend to believe it. Especially since Apple never made any statements that it didn't infringe (HTC and Samsung have made those statements in their respective lawsuits).
Gator, I'm getting ready for work but will look into it, but considering it took two years for Nokia to take them to court (meaning negotiations had to have been ongoing between 2007-2008) and the fact that lawyers can't straight up lie in court (if Apple made that claim in court it would be required to turn over any related emails in the negotiation AND Nokia would have to disclose what it charges others), I tend to believe it. Especially since Apple never made any statements that it didn't infringe (HTC and Samsung have made those statements in their respective lawsuits).
Certainly could all be true, but I got the impression that between Apple's countersuit and Nokia, that the holdup was Nokia's wish to cross-license some patents. I didn't see that licensing fees were much in disagreement and thus more a red herring to garner sympathy than anything.
Apple originally denied it infringed on any of the Nokia patents, then went on to say that even if it might appear they had, the Nokia patents weren't valid anyway, thus unenforceable. Those Apple claims were still being made when they filed their countersuit that Nokia was the one infringing on Apple patents, not the other way around. That doesn't sound like a company willing to pay fair/FRAND licensing fees.
The Axis of Copycats just refuse to go out and do something original.
However, for all their copycatting, lawsuits and bogus self promotion, Android is and remains today - a train wreck.
So if Apple is copying HTC, and Samsung is copying Apple, does it follow that Samsung should also be sued by HTC?
Why not just have one big clusterf*ck of a lawsuit with everybody throwing down all at once? Maybe have tag-team rules for the lawyers?
Apple's Multi-tasking is basically a modified version of what Android does (it follows the same basic policies as Android's implementation but with stricter rules about WHAT can run in the background (certain type of data only).
This is simply not true by any stretch of the imagination. There are some similarities on the outside that the two implementations share with a million others, but technically they are nothing like each other. In fact, the whole life cycle management of iOS applications and the way they can multitask is completely intertwined, which is almost orthogonal to the way it works on Android, where preemptive multitasking is the norm, and suspend/resume to RAM/Flash is the exception.
Using the multitasking implementations of iOS and Android to demonstrate how everyone 'borrows' ideas from everyone (which I actually agree with) is about the worst example you could make. The multitasking implementation in iOS is actually pretty unique, I've never seen anything like it in any other OS, desktop or mobile. You may not like it because it is more limited than other systems, but it's most definitely not copied from something else.
Apple's new notification system pulled features from Android, WebOS, and from Jailbreak Devs.
The old iOS notification system was actually so crappy it's almost unbelievable Apple didn't re-do it with the 2nd generation iOS devices. Now they replaced it with a solution that has been commonplace in millions of other OS's. RIM, WebOS, Android, even some WM phones had it, and many desktop OS's have had similar notification tray plugins for over a decade. The whole idea of a notification tray has converged to an almost 'optimal' solution long ago, and Apple is simply implementing that idea later than everyone else. Pointing to Android to show how Apple 'stole' the notification system is really kind of dumb, it just goes to show how little else you can think of to support your argument that Apple copied Android.
Apple released iMessage, a program that borrows heavily from the idea of BBM, but ads the awesome ability to automatically detect if the person you're messaging is an iOS5 user so you don't have to switch between it and a "standard" texting program.
iMessage is just another stupid example of something that has existed for decades, even before the first smartphones. I never heard anyone say that BBM was a ripoff of ICQ or anything, even though it's exactly the same. Just like with the notification system, Apple is simply adding a blatantly obvious feature that was new and innovative in the 90's, it has nothing to do with copying BlackBerry. Apple is simply reacting to the popularity of SMS, BBM, WhatsApp, whatever, with their own totally obvious implementation of the same idea.
This adaptation does NOT make Apple less innovative or their products any less amazing. As I said, this is how business works. The problem is now companies are patenting EVERYTHING because they're convinced that every new idea should be their exclusively for 15 YEARS. Realistically, companies were patenting everything because other companies were patenting everything and it became almost a cold war where these companies built up massive war chest so that they could continue releasing new products without fear of a lawsuit.
Companies are patenting everything for one reason only: because if they don't, they are vulnerable to litigation. It has literally nothing to do with having exclusivity of innovations or whatever. It's pocket change to protect against competitors and patent trolls trying to parasite on your success.
A company defending against counterfeiters is fine, and it should be done because knock-offs like that can destroy a brand image. But Apple's going after companies because they let the user unlock a touchscreen device using the touchscreen. (slide to unlock) And now everyone is suing everyone else over patents that range from pointless to patents that are "well duh" type things (as in, everyone uses it everywhere already)
All this does is waste money paying lawyers and creates an insanely high barrier to entry for new companies. There are so many broad patents out there that it's practically impossible to create anything that does violate at least a few (a smartphone is over a quarter million at least). It's telling that when Apple first started suing HTC, the commentary wasn't on how valid the patents were, but rather how HTC was at a disadvantage because they had so few patents to countersue apple with.
How is a system based off of the assumption that everyone is violating patents (and that's what gives them their value) a productive one?
I agree with most of this, the system is rotten, and Apple is no saint here either, in fact they have been acting like a bunch of d*cks on multiple occasions, and I don't like it. Apple doesn't need patent litigation to be competitive.
That said, in the whole Apple vs. Android and specifically Apple vs. Samsung, I completely understand why Apple is going in full-force, legally. The last few years it's almost insulting how blatantly Samsung but also for example Acer are ripping off Apple products, both the hardware and the software. I honestly can't imagine anyone denying this is true, no matter how much you hate Apple. These companies are simply trying to get a free ride on the wave of success that Apple has created with products like the iPhone, iOS, the iPad and the MacBook Air.
So when Google assists HTC it's all <jimbo accent>"dey took arr jobs"</jimbo>. But when Apple does all their manufacturing in China, it's business as usual? For a "global philosopher", you're rather narrow-minded.
Manufacturing in China is what allows Apple to sell at high margins. Apple makes more profits that way.
This is simply not true by any stretch of the imagination. There are some similarities on the outside that the two implementations share with a million others, but technically they are nothing like each other. In fact, the whole life cycle management of iOS applications and the way they can multitask is completely intertwined, which is almost orthogonal to the way it works on Android, where preemptive multitasking is the norm, and suspend/resume to RAM/Flash is the exception.
Using the multitasking implementations of iOS and Android to demonstrate how everyone 'borrows' ideas from everyone (which I actually agree with) is about the worst example you could make. The multitasking implementation in iOS is actually pretty unique, I've never seen anything like it in any other OS, desktop or mobile. You may not like it because it is more limited than other systems, but it's most definitely not copied from something else.
Suspend/resume is the norm. If something keeps running in the background (since 2.0) it MUST put an icon in the notification tray. Kinda like Navigation shows that it's always on on iOS. For MOST apps, when you hit the home key, or the search key, or switch apps, it suspends it and doesn't consume ANYTHING else in the background.
Where you're getting confused is that Android allows devices to start themselves up in the background, to "wake" the device to pull information (news apps and twitter clients, for example) after they do this, the app suspends itself again. It's not "constantly" running in the background.
So yes, apple's implementation is VERY similar, but it has higher restrictions. That doesn't make it a totally different implementation. Google does allow entire apps to work in the background, but most developers don't do this because they know it's pointless to do so and just leads to higher battery drain (and thus lower marks in the market)
The old iOS notification system was actually so crappy it's almost unbelievable Apple didn't re-do it with the 2nd generation iOS devices. Now they replaced it with a solution that has been commonplace in millions of other OS's. RIM, WebOS, Android, even some WM phones had it, and many desktop OS's have had similar notification tray plugins for over a decade. The whole idea of a notification tray has converged to an almost 'optimal' solution long ago, and Apple is simply implementing that idea later than everyone else. Pointing to Android to show how Apple 'stole' the notification system is really kind of dumb, it just goes to show how little else you can think of to support your argument that Apple copied Android.
It's their implementation of it that's the adoption, not that they did away with a crappy system.
The notification itself (the pop over bar) that appears and then goes away is VERY similar to what you see in iOS. And then you can access the notification by pulling down the status bar, that lists all your notifications in a tray.
RIM puts icons in the status bar area, but you have to open individual applications to see what's going on. I haven't used a windows mobile OS device since the Q, so I'm not sure how they handle it.
Notifications that don't suck IS the industry standard, but sticking them in a tray (where you can preview them without entering the app) or having them pop up on the edge of a screen with the preview are both pretty unique and identifiable methods.
again, I am NOT saying there is anything wrong with them doing this.
iMessage is just another stupid example of something that has existed for decades, even before the first smartphones. I never heard anyone say that BBM was a ripoff of ICQ or anything, even though it's exactly the same. Just like with the notification system, Apple is simply adding a blatantly obvious feature that was new and innovative in the 90's, it has nothing to do with copying BlackBerry. Apple is simply reacting to the popularity of SMS, BBM, WhatsApp, whatever, with their own totally obvious implementation of the same idea.
The difference with BBM though is that it's not cross platform. It's something that is exclusive to BBOS devices. Like iMessage will be exclusive to iOS (and possibly OSX) it's used as a form of "lockin" more than something like ICQ could.
There are a ton of people who hesitated switching from a Berry because of BBM. The same can't be said about ICQ, but it WILL be said about imessage (especially with carriers doing away with limited data plans)
Suspend/resume is the norm. If something keeps running in the background (since 2.0) it MUST put an icon in the notification tray. Kinda like Navigation shows that it's always on on iOS. For MOST apps, when you hit the home key, or the search key, or switch apps, it suspends it and doesn't consume ANYTHING else in the background.
Where you're getting confused is that Android allows devices to start themselves up in the background, to "wake" the device to pull information (news apps and twitter clients, for example) after they do this, the app suspends itself again. It's not "constantly" running in the background.
So yes, apple's implementation is VERY similar, but it has higher restrictions. That doesn't make it a totally different implementation. Google does allow entire apps to work in the background, but most developers don't do this because they know it's pointless to do so and just leads to higher battery drain (and thus lower marks in the market)
This is all looking from the user perspective. From the developer perspective, the way iOS provides multitasking is completely different from Android. Both have a very comparable way of managing the application lifecycle (start, stop, and suspend/resume), but iOS has had this since day 1, so it definitely didn't copy it from Android. With iOS 4, Apple integrated a multitasking API into the iOS application lifecycle management in a way that is totally specific to iOS.
The way applications interact with the OS if they want to multitask are technically incomparable to any other OS I know. This is not just about how iOS puts certain restrictions on what a background application can do (which is something only iOS does this way as well), but also about how backgrounding an application relates to terminating or suspending it, how an application transitions between these states and what actually happens when an iOS application goes into the background. Effectively, when you implement multitasking into an iOS app, the application itself doesn't actually run in the background, instead it gets suspended as usual after registering a piece code tied to an OS callback. The UI and every other aspect of the application could actually be unloaded from RAM if necessary, with just the code and data the developer explicitly installed for backgrounding remaining active.
No matter how you look at it, it's decidedly different from how Android does it. The Android multitasking implementation is much more straightforward. This makes it more flexible, but this flexibility comes at cost: you either don't multitask (ie: use only suspend/resume), or you do full-on multitasking (at the cost of RAM and CPU cycles, and yes: even a 'sleeping'/waiting multitasked application takes CPU cycles and battery, because it wakes the CPU from idle at regular intervals). I'm not saying one is 'better' than the other, but they are definitely very different, on a technical level.
-- You can only sue for patent infringement of patents you actually own at the time of the alleged infringement. --
Seems like this type of standard would make the gifting of patents or purchase of companies for their patents less appealing. Such actions might protect you going forward, but wouldn't help your past actions.
For example, in this case the patents "gifted" to HTC would protect future hardware, but since they didn't own them at the time of the original alleged infringement, they'd still be open to legal action on devices manufactured/sold up until the time of the patent "gift".
Anyone with more knowledge of the patent/legal system have any thoughts or comments?
They still created the product and sold it (and profited from it) without licensing the patents. Looks a lot like "refusing" to pay to me.
Well, putting FRAND license rate funds in escrow during the several year negotiation period before the lawsuit says otherwise. You can rail at the logic and fact all you want, but it doesn't make you right.
Well, putting FRAND license rate funds in escrow during the several year negotiation period before the lawsuit says otherwise. You can rail at the logic and fact all you want, but it doesn't make you right.
Did they pay the money to those companies before they released the product?
That's what I'm saying.
They said "we don't like your terms, so if you want the money, sue us."
The question if they put money aside to pay has no bearing on that. Yes, because they were FRAND they had an idea for how much they were expected to pay. But that doesn't change the fact that they DIDN'T pay until Nokia took them to court over it.
Did they pay the money to those companies before they released the product?
That's what I'm saying.
They said "we don't like your terms, so if you want the money, sue us."
The question if they put money aside to pay has no bearing on that. Yes, because they were FRAND they had an idea for how much they were expected to pay. But that doesn't change the fact that they DIDN'T pay until Nokia took them to court over it.
Not only refused to pay, but claimed in their counterclaim that they were not infringing on the Nokia patents to begin with, they weren't valid patents anyway, and it was Nokia who was the patent infringer, not the other way around.
Does that sound like a company that was plainly willing to pay for a license to the IP?