As long as it's legal, then I say good for Apple! Apple should use every method that they can to crush it's enemies. Apple should make friends with every patent troll in the world and then band together to sue the hell out of everybody, while Apple is protected.
I completely agree, its not the same when the shoe is on the other foot eh? lol. If google and HTC can do it to beat up apple then all is fair in war, and make no mistake this is a war. Google is no boy scout and neither is Apple. Sometimes you have to get down in the trenches and fight fire with fire, because after all in this sort of dispute winning is what really matters.
Having said that, we really dont know why apple gave those patents to the patent company that is mentioned in this article, as the article states it could have been to settle with them.
Oh and also have to add Drummond is a whiney Crybaby, and an embarressment to Google. He has room to talk lol about fair competition .......What a wind bag.
Is the message in my sig really that unclear? I'd love to change it but I'm taking a stand against other posters with excessively large sigs. I can't exactly make my point with a small sig, now can I. It's exactly the same number of lines as ConradJoe's heavily spaced sig.
The difference is that I space my signature to make it look better, while you space yours to make it look worse.
It is the tactic if a 5 year old who gets all pissed off if his younger brother is wearing a funny hat.
Notice where I used the words "ideas and developments", not just design. There are implementations of Apple's patented designs in almost every Android phone. They might be as minor as the screen 'bounce' when you over scroll, but that is a patented idea and Apple has every legal right to aggressively defend their intellectual property.
The legal system forces companies to aggressively defend their IP. The US patent office isn't going to do that for anyone. When Apple initiates a legal claim, that doesn't mean they are 'on offense', as you so wrongly put it, any more than someone who hires a defense attorney is 'playing bully' to defend himself in court. Protecting a companies properties is defensive by its very nature.
There are plenty of other examples of companies that aggressively defend their IP, but as they won't fit into your world view of "Apple=bad, not Apple=good", I won't bother to provide examples.
The fact that you assume to know my worldview shows that you probably cannot be reasoned with.
The fact that you are supporting ANY company's move that feeds a patent troll is pathetic.
Apple may not be stifling innovation but patent trolls are damn near as a mission statement.
Potentially earning the ire of RIM, LG, Sony, Samsung, Nokia, Motorola, HTC, and Amazon? Very smart.
I don't really know. Have you asked Google or Samsung themselves?
It sounds like this whole thing means a lot to you personally. Perusing the eradication of any group (be they social, racial, religious or other) sounds unhealthy & you seem to be engaged in some fictitious war.
Probably best if I ignore you from now in as I doubt you can have any kind of sound discussion with that kind of fanaticism.
With you on that. If this is accurate, it's in poor taste. Apple can no longer claim any kind of moral high ground in anything.
'Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war, That this foul deed shall smell above the earth.'
- "Julius Caesar," William Shakespeare, Act 3, Scene 1
Apple is just using someone else's dogs.
Ah, you're only impressed by Shakespeare because people don't talk that way any more. Today's English is more like, "hey dummy, gimme the remote. I wanna watch WWE."
Disclaimer: I am by no means an expert on patent law or patents in general nor do I pretend to be. I could if I wanted to as thats the beauty of the Internet: if you can type coherent sentences you can be an expert on anything. Many people here I think pretend they know something, though I can tell a few here actually seem to have some real knowledge of the workings of patents/patent law. Either that, or they are very talented at pretending.
Anyway.
Why do we even need patents? Maybe that sounds like a very childish and simplistic question, but things have become so overblown in the last decade that I think we really need to rethink some of these concepts. Yes, patents were originally meant to safeguard innovations and ideas, but when the innovations are so incredibly vague in description that the patents themselves could easily describe a toaster with an LED/LCD display let alone a smartphone how can we really justify the existence of patents now when all they are good for is suing everyone into the ground? They're weapons of a vague and nondescript war that nobody can really win.
All the players in this cell phone patent war seem to have thousands of patents pertaining to cell phone technology. How can that even be? How can there be literally thousands of patents describing how a cell phone works and that each company has just as many patents describing similar things as the next? How is that safeguarding any innovation? It seems like we're safeguarding slightly differently worded innovations that might actually be the same things. Nokia blasts Apple for 3G technology used in iPhone...now Motorola is doing the same? Why aren't Nokia and Motorola blasting each other to bits too while we're at it? Who knows maybe they are. On top of that, HTC tries to acquire S3 to blast Apple for graphics patents that apparently S3 didn't even own! Its almost like we need reforms and regulations to bring all of this back down to earth. If we really do need patents (and I actually believe we do), then I think we need to regulate how patents are described and how they will be used. Will they be used? Will they sit collecting dust till the technology is invented?
Lets go from: To build a handheld device that allows people to communicate great distances through use of cell towers and...oh yeah has a touchscreen, bluetooth, 3G/4G radio, WiFi, a camera, another camera, proximity sensor, physical buttons, software buttons, an operating system, software that runs on the operating system and makes a great piece of slightly burnt bread.
To: Cell phone that makes toast.
Maybe that's too simple but I have a feeling everyone and their mother's brother's mail man has a patent pertaining to the construction of a cell phone and technologies used therein. I think we need to be more specific in nature so that this patent overlap (that I'm assuming exists) doesn't completely destroy innovation as it seems to be doing.
Just my (admittedly) uninformed and ignorant 2 cents.
On a slight aside: It seems like there's rarely anything to report about high technology anymore. The paradigm shift is now towards reporting about vague descriptions of technologies that are registered with an office and used to completely destroy companies that didn't even realize there was a registered vague description on some tech they used. Other than that, it seems like everything else is about reporting on a report from some analyst who thinks they are an oracle reporting about the sales of current products and making predictions about upcoming products. Often these people are like those in the disclaimer who pretend.
Anybody who stands to profit by making Apple fans look bad.
Aha, so maybe Google is paying me to post here, or maybe Samsung. I see now.
But in that case, we're on the same side, aren't we? So why do all of the Fandroids get upset whenever I make my comments? Hmmmm.
The next time that I happen to say something bad about Android or when I happen to bash Fandroids, I will expect no complaints from any Fandroids at all, and I will actually demand their respect while I am bashing them, since I am doing it all for them after all and I am working for their master. Fandroids should be thanking me.
They wait for something to inadvertently use their patents (cross their bridge) and then they charge them for it. Sure, it's a pejorative term but it does fit the practice. Is there a better term to use that is as descriptive without sounding negative?
Smart business people?
What you're calling 'patent trolling' is legal and fully consistent with U.S. law and practice (probably in other countries, as well, although I'm not too familiar with patent law outside the U.S. and, somewhat, in Europe).
It's no different than someone who uses advertising or other promotions to build a demand for their products. Are they 'business trolls'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Is the message in my sig really that unclear? I'd love to change it but I'm taking a stand against other posters with excessively large sigs. I can't exactly make my point with a small sig, now can I. It's exactly the same number of lines as ConradJoe's heavily spaced sig.
I'm taking a stand against murderers. I think I'll go shoot a few people.
And I'm taking a stand against shoplifting. I think I'll head down to Walmart and fill my pockets.
I'm also taking a stand against speeding. I'm going to drive 100 mph down the Interstate.
See how foolish your idea sounds?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe
Apple is akin to a gun runner, who supplies evil people with the means to further their evil.
That is, of course, ridiculous. In what way is Apple encouraging people to break the law or to be evil?
Quote:
Originally Posted by carmelapple
Disclaimer: I am by no means an expert on patent law or patents in general nor do I pretend to be. I could if I wanted to as thats the beauty of the Internet: if you can type coherent sentences you can be an expert on anything. Many people here I think pretend they know something, though I can tell a few here actually seem to have some real knowledge of the workings of patents/patent law. Either that, or they are very talented at pretending.
I have patents to my name and have managed R&D departments which earned dozens of other patents (which required me to be involved with the patent process). Is that sufficient?
Quote:
Originally Posted by carmelapple
Why do we even need patents? Maybe that sounds like a very childish and simplistic question, but things have become so overblown in the last decade that I think we really need to rethink some of these concepts. Yes, patents were originally meant to safeguard innovations and ideas, but when the innovations are so incredibly vague in description that the patents themselves could easily describe a toaster with an LED/LCD display let alone a smartphone how can we really justify the existence of patents now when all they are good for is suing everyone into the ground? They're weapons of a vague and nondescript war that nobody can really win.
You're arguing two different things. Do patents get awarded that shouldn't be? Sure. And it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the standards should be stricter or that the patent examiners should have better training (although you'd better be prepared to pay more to keep USPTO open if they have to hire more and better examiners).
But to jump from there to "we don't need patents" is absurd. Patents protect inventors. If a company couldn't protect its intellectual property, why invest in R&D? The winner would simply be the company who can copy things fastest. There would no longer be any advantage to innovation - which would be bad for consumers and the economy as a whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carmelapple
Just my (admittedly) uninformed and ignorant 2 cents..
Apple rival Google has been vociferous in its complaints about the current patent system. In August, David Drummond, the company's chief legal officer accused Apple and Microsoft of "banding together" to use patents to attack its Android operating system.
"Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it," Drummond wrote.
Kind of implies that Android has any innovations to be stifled. I've yet to see any at all on my HTC, it's just a poor iOS clone.
Comments
If true, then this is great news!
How can anybody whine about this? Why do these people insist that Apple brings a knife to a gun fight?
How is this any different than Google buying Motorola and then giving some patents to HTC, which they then use to sue Apple with?
Google gives HTC patents so it can sue Apple
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...sue-Apple.html
As long as it's legal, then I say good for Apple! Apple should use every method that they can to crush it's enemies. Apple should make friends with every patent troll in the world and then band together to sue the hell out of everybody, while Apple is protected.
I completely agree, its not the same when the shoe is on the other foot eh? lol. If google and HTC can do it to beat up apple then all is fair in war, and make no mistake this is a war. Google is no boy scout and neither is Apple. Sometimes you have to get down in the trenches and fight fire with fire, because after all in this sort of dispute winning is what really matters.
Having said that, we really dont know why apple gave those patents to the patent company that is mentioned in this article, as the article states it could have been to settle with them.
Oh and also have to add Drummond is a whiney Crybaby, and an embarressment to Google. He has room to talk lol about fair competition .......What a wind bag.
Is the message in my sig really that unclear? I'd love to change it but I'm taking a stand against other posters with excessively large sigs. I can't exactly make my point with a small sig, now can I. It's exactly the same number of lines as ConradJoe's heavily spaced sig.
The difference is that I space my signature to make it look better, while you space yours to make it look worse.
It is the tactic if a 5 year old who gets all pissed off if his younger brother is wearing a funny hat.
I know I'm not responsible for what other apple fanboys think or say, but these are the sort of comments I find embarrassing.
Don't worry about the OP's statements. He is a paid shill trying to make fanboys look bad.
Notice where I used the words "ideas and developments", not just design. There are implementations of Apple's patented designs in almost every Android phone. They might be as minor as the screen 'bounce' when you over scroll, but that is a patented idea and Apple has every legal right to aggressively defend their intellectual property.
The legal system forces companies to aggressively defend their IP. The US patent office isn't going to do that for anyone. When Apple initiates a legal claim, that doesn't mean they are 'on offense', as you so wrongly put it, any more than someone who hires a defense attorney is 'playing bully' to defend himself in court. Protecting a companies properties is defensive by its very nature.
There are plenty of other examples of companies that aggressively defend their IP, but as they won't fit into your world view of "Apple=bad, not Apple=good", I won't bother to provide examples.
The fact that you assume to know my worldview shows that you probably cannot be reasoned with.
The fact that you are supporting ANY company's move that feeds a patent troll is pathetic.
Apple may not be stifling innovation but patent trolls are damn near as a mission statement.
If that sounds like a sense of morality, it is.
There is no room for people like you at companies like Apple.
According to a new report,
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Seems rather vague. Who's report?
There is no room for people like you at companies like Apple.
Actually, there is no room for either of you at Apple.
And I'm just curious, since you made a slanderous lie in your previous post.
Who exactly would be paying me?
Apple? Apple's competitors? Hmmmmm
I'm curious to hear your genius explanation as to who exactly would possibly pay a poster like me to post here.
Potentially earning the ire of RIM, LG, Sony, Samsung, Nokia, Motorola, HTC, and Amazon? Very smart.
I don't really know. Have you asked Google or Samsung themselves?
It sounds like this whole thing means a lot to you personally. Perusing the eradication of any group (be they social, racial, religious or other) sounds unhealthy & you seem to be engaged in some fictitious war.
Probably best if I ignore you from now in as I doubt you can have any kind of sound discussion with that kind of fanaticism.
With you on that. If this is accurate, it's in poor taste. Apple can no longer claim any kind of moral high ground in anything.
Pass the popcorn... please...
'Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war, That this foul deed shall smell above the earth.'
- "Julius Caesar," William Shakespeare, Act 3, Scene 1
Apple is just using someone else's dogs.
Ah, you're only impressed by Shakespeare because people don't talk that way any more. Today's English is more like, "hey dummy, gimme the remote. I wanna watch WWE."
With you on that. If this is accurate, it's in poor taste. Apple can no longer claim any kind of moral high ground in anything.
Yes, but who can?
Anyway.
Why do we even need patents? Maybe that sounds like a very childish and simplistic question, but things have become so overblown in the last decade that I think we really need to rethink some of these concepts. Yes, patents were originally meant to safeguard innovations and ideas, but when the innovations are so incredibly vague in description that the patents themselves could easily describe a toaster with an LED/LCD display let alone a smartphone how can we really justify the existence of patents now when all they are good for is suing everyone into the ground? They're weapons of a vague and nondescript war that nobody can really win.
All the players in this cell phone patent war seem to have thousands of patents pertaining to cell phone technology. How can that even be? How can there be literally thousands of patents describing how a cell phone works and that each company has just as many patents describing similar things as the next? How is that safeguarding any innovation? It seems like we're safeguarding slightly differently worded innovations that might actually be the same things. Nokia blasts Apple for 3G technology used in iPhone...now Motorola is doing the same? Why aren't Nokia and Motorola blasting each other to bits too while we're at it? Who knows maybe they are. On top of that, HTC tries to acquire S3 to blast Apple for graphics patents that apparently S3 didn't even own! Its almost like we need reforms and regulations to bring all of this back down to earth. If we really do need patents (and I actually believe we do), then I think we need to regulate how patents are described and how they will be used. Will they be used? Will they sit collecting dust till the technology is invented?
Lets go from: To build a handheld device that allows people to communicate great distances through use of cell towers and...oh yeah has a touchscreen, bluetooth, 3G/4G radio, WiFi, a camera, another camera, proximity sensor, physical buttons, software buttons, an operating system, software that runs on the operating system and makes a great piece of slightly burnt bread.
To: Cell phone that makes toast.
Maybe that's too simple but I have a feeling everyone and their mother's brother's mail man has a patent pertaining to the construction of a cell phone and technologies used therein. I think we need to be more specific in nature so that this patent overlap (that I'm assuming exists) doesn't completely destroy innovation as it seems to be doing.
Just my (admittedly) uninformed and ignorant 2 cents.
On a slight aside: It seems like there's rarely anything to report about high technology anymore. The paradigm shift is now towards reporting about vague descriptions of technologies that are registered with an office and used to completely destroy companies that didn't even realize there was a registered vague description on some tech they used. Other than that, it seems like everything else is about reporting on a report from some analyst who thinks they are an oracle reporting about the sales of current products and making predictions about upcoming products. Often these people are like those in the disclaimer who pretend.
You just put patent trolls fighting other patent trolls... what a show...
I'm curious to hear your genius explanation as to who exactly would possibly pay a poster like me to post here.
Anybody who stands to profit by making Apple fans look bad.
Anybody who stands to profit by making Apple fans look bad.
Aha, so maybe Google is paying me to post here, or maybe Samsung. I see now.
But in that case, we're on the same side, aren't we? So why do all of the Fandroids get upset whenever I make my comments? Hmmmm.
The next time that I happen to say something bad about Android or when I happen to bash Fandroids, I will expect no complaints from any Fandroids at all, and I will actually demand their respect while I am bashing them, since I am doing it all for them after all and I am working for their master. Fandroids should be thanking me.
They wait for something to inadvertently use their patents (cross their bridge) and then they charge them for it. Sure, it's a pejorative term but it does fit the practice. Is there a better term to use that is as descriptive without sounding negative?
Smart business people?
What you're calling 'patent trolling' is legal and fully consistent with U.S. law and practice (probably in other countries, as well, although I'm not too familiar with patent law outside the U.S. and, somewhat, in Europe).
It's no different than someone who uses advertising or other promotions to build a demand for their products. Are they 'business trolls'?
Is the message in my sig really that unclear? I'd love to change it but I'm taking a stand against other posters with excessively large sigs. I can't exactly make my point with a small sig, now can I. It's exactly the same number of lines as ConradJoe's heavily spaced sig.
I'm taking a stand against murderers. I think I'll go shoot a few people.
And I'm taking a stand against shoplifting. I think I'll head down to Walmart and fill my pockets.
I'm also taking a stand against speeding. I'm going to drive 100 mph down the Interstate.
See how foolish your idea sounds?
Apple is akin to a gun runner, who supplies evil people with the means to further their evil.
That is, of course, ridiculous. In what way is Apple encouraging people to break the law or to be evil?
Disclaimer: I am by no means an expert on patent law or patents in general nor do I pretend to be. I could if I wanted to as thats the beauty of the Internet: if you can type coherent sentences you can be an expert on anything. Many people here I think pretend they know something, though I can tell a few here actually seem to have some real knowledge of the workings of patents/patent law. Either that, or they are very talented at pretending.
I have patents to my name and have managed R&D departments which earned dozens of other patents (which required me to be involved with the patent process). Is that sufficient?
Why do we even need patents? Maybe that sounds like a very childish and simplistic question, but things have become so overblown in the last decade that I think we really need to rethink some of these concepts. Yes, patents were originally meant to safeguard innovations and ideas, but when the innovations are so incredibly vague in description that the patents themselves could easily describe a toaster with an LED/LCD display let alone a smartphone how can we really justify the existence of patents now when all they are good for is suing everyone into the ground? They're weapons of a vague and nondescript war that nobody can really win.
You're arguing two different things. Do patents get awarded that shouldn't be? Sure. And it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the standards should be stricter or that the patent examiners should have better training (although you'd better be prepared to pay more to keep USPTO open if they have to hire more and better examiners).
But to jump from there to "we don't need patents" is absurd. Patents protect inventors. If a company couldn't protect its intellectual property, why invest in R&D? The winner would simply be the company who can copy things fastest. There would no longer be any advantage to innovation - which would be bad for consumers and the economy as a whole.
Just my (admittedly) uninformed and ignorant 2 cents..
Glad you said that - you saved me the trouble.
Apple rival Google has been vociferous in its complaints about the current patent system. In August, David Drummond, the company's chief legal officer accused Apple and Microsoft of "banding together" to use patents to attack its Android operating system.
"Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it," Drummond wrote.
Kind of implies that Android has any innovations to be stifled. I've yet to see any at all on my HTC, it's just a poor iOS clone.
S
I'm taking a stand against murderers. I think I'll go shoot a few people.
And I'm taking a stand against shoplifting. I think I'll head down to Walmart and fill my pockets.
I'm also taking a stand against speeding. I'm going to drive 100 mph down the Interstate.
See how foolish your idea sounds?
You're kidding, right?
Oh boy... what can I say.
I can only hope you're kidding.
I'm speechless... and that occurs a lot less often than a blue moon...
So why do all of the Fandroids get upset whenever I make my comments? Hmmmm.
The mistakes of fact? The lapses of logic?
Your guess is as good as mine.