Don't you think that Apple would be better to just license this tech now that they have the ITC ruling set as a precedent? They could ask for a dollar per phone from each and every android handset sold. That would bring in a silly amount of cash.
It looks like Rubin may have inadvertently seen the source code for this, when he was working at Apple with other engineers involved with this specific patent.
He may have copied it when developing Android.
Now the law is quite black and white on this whether it was "inadvertent" or not, it was stolen and HTC has been found guilty so far of using it.
"Inadvertently" picking something of a shelf in a store and walking out with it is no defence.
It looks like Rubin may have inadvertently seen the source code for this, when he was working at Apple with other engineers involved with this specific patent.
He may have copied it when developing Android.
Now the law is quite black and white on this whether it was "inadvertent" or not, it was stolen and HTC has been found guilty so far of using it.
"Inadvertently" picking something of a shelf in a store and walking out with it is no defence.
Source code to the function, Rubin is the link.
These patents don't deal with source codes...if they did fewer of these patents would hold any water.
no? If source codes were required for software patents software patents would be a lot weaker than they are.
I can patent A hinge...but I can't patent THE hinge. Physical objects need more specifics...I can't patent the idea of a hinge.
Software patents allow you to patent the "method and apparatus for..." almost anything effectively patenting the idea of something.
If there is a common problem...and 100 engineers code 100 ways to get from point A to B...should the first person to get to B get to tell the other 99 that their 99 different ways of getting the same result are STOLEN!!!!!??
I get that you love Apple...but don't be closed minded.
Infringe...yes... (specifically due to how software patents are handled) stole? no. Had any of Apple's source code been found in Android source code (Freely available) Apple would've shut down Android a long time ago.
I don't know if that's the reason 2.3 and up aren't included in the ruling or not, or if it's for other reasons such as changed functionality. Apparently you found a link making that claim?
EDIT: Apple originally filed the case in early April 2010. Android 2.2 was not yet announced, and the first HTC phone with "Froyo" was several months after that. I suppose Apple may have amended it's claim after 2.2 started appearing in HTC smartphones, but that would beg the question why 2.3/Gingerbread wasn't also added via an amended claim.
HTC's statement on this issue is very clear:
"However, the ‘647 patent is a small UI experience and HTC will completely remove it from all of our phones soon.”
They aren't talking about a workaround here. They're talking about complete removal.
So, for example, in a future firmware update, ALL new HTC phones imported into the USA will no longer allow you to tap on a URL within an SMS message to automatically pull up the web browser. Or tap on a phone number within an email to automatically pull up the phone dialer. Check back in 2019 when the patent expires.
"However, the ?647 patent is a small UI experience and HTC will completely remove it from all of our phones soon.?
They aren't talking about a workaround here. They're talking about complete removal.
So, for example, in a future firmware update, ALL new HTC phones imported into the USA will no longer allow you to tap on a URL within an SMS message to automatically pull up the web browser. Or tap on a phone number within an email to automatically pull up the phone dialer. Check back in 2019 when the patent expires.
"However, the ?647 patent is a small UI experience and HTC will completely remove it from all of our phones soon.?
They aren't talking about a workaround here. They're talking about complete removal.
So, for example, in a future firmware update, ALL new HTC phones imported into the USA will no longer allow you to tap on a URL within an SMS message to automatically pull up the web browser. Or tap on a phone number within an email to automatically pull up the phone dialer. Check back in 2019 when the patent expires.
What's going to stop future HTC owners from just going to the app stores or wherever and just downloading the original, a modified, or a different SMS app that has this feature?
What's going to stop future HTC owners from just going to the app stores or wherever and just downloading the original, a modified, or a different SMS app that has this feature?
Tim Berners Lee, the inventor of the WWW has said he was inspired by Hypercard's capabilities and he figured out how to hyperlink documents between servers, another clearly independent advance. And he did so programming on a NeXT box, using Apple provided APIs and capabilities. Notice Apple never rained on the parade of an obviously independent discovery even though it indirectly depended on Apple tech (I say Apple because Apple bought NeXT very shortly after Berners Lee finished his initial work and NeXT OS became OS X).
Apple (aside from Steve and other former Apple employees) was not involved with NeXT in any way when Berners-Lee successfully developed a working version of HTTP on NeXT hardware. This happened well before Apple bought NeXT in 1997.
From Wikipedia:
Quote:
A NeXT Computer was used by Berners-Lee as the world's first web server and also to write the first web browser, WorldWideWeb, in 1990. By Christmas 1990, Berners-Lee had built all the tools necessary for a working Web:[9] the first web browser (which was a web editor as well); the first web server; and the first web pages,[10] which described the project itself. On August 6, 1991, he posted a short summary of the World Wide Web project on the alt.hypertext newsgroup.[11] This date also marked the debut of the Web as a publicly available service on the Internet. The first photo on the web was uploaded by Berners-Lee in 1992, an image of the CERN house band Les Horribles Cernettes.
What's is interesting is just how deeply Steve has impacted the world, not just in consumer devices, but in areas like bringing the WWW to the public. Would Berners-Lee had been [as] successful/inspired if HyperCard and the NeXT hardware not been available?
Apple (aside from Steve and other former Apple employees) was not involved with NeXT in any way when Berners-Lee successfully developed a working version of HTTP on NeXT hardware. This happened well before Apple bought NeXT in 1997.
That's true. But Once Apple paid it's money, it became Apple's IP, so the correct reference to it from that point forward is "Apple's". Doesn't matter that it was developed outside and brought in, the distinction is only of historical interest (which I fully indicated it as NeXT derived already so you aren't bringing anything new to the subject), not legal.
Quote:
From Wikipedia:
What's is interesting is just how deeply Steve has impacted the world, not just in consumer devices, but in areas like bringing the WWW to the public. Would Berners-Lee had been [as] successful/inspired if HyperCard and the NeXT hardware not been available?
Probably not. None of the tools/ideas he used and adapted existed anywhere else. Eventually something like the internet would have been invented, but probably later and much more Microsoft derived.
Android developer or not, a lot of developers from all platforms, including IOS, would be receiving a negative vibe.
IMO, if Apple went this route, it would lower my feelings of Apple to the same level as Sony.
Apple already uses C&D letters and revokes dev status even with Apple 3rd party devs if it suits their purposes because Apple thinks the dev broke a rule or agreement. Why on earth would they shy away from sending one to an Android dev for using Apple IP?
Apple already uses C&D letters and revokes dev status even with Apple 3rd party devs if it suits their purposes because Apple thinks the dev broke a rule or agreement. Why on earth would they shy away from sending one to an Android dev for using Apple IP?
Apple can send C&Ds and revokes to IOS devs because there is an agreement in place.
Sending a C&D to an android dev will just end up in the garbage and I don't think to many android devs would care if Apple wouldn't recognize them as an IOS dev, because they're probably not one anyhow.
Apple can send C&Ds and revokes to IOS devs because there is an agreement in place.
Sending a C&D to an android dev will just end up in the garbage and I don't think to many android devs would care if Apple wouldn't recognize them as an IOS dev, because they're probably not one anyhow.
So are you somehow suggesting that a patent infringement injunction against an Android 3rd party developer wouldn't hold up simply because the 3rd party developer doesn't have an existing relationship with Apple?
You've got it backwards -- the only way a 3rd party can possibly have permission to use any Apple-patented technology would be because they had previously entered into such a relationship -- either directly with Apple, or else with a patent licensing pool to which Apple contributes. The absence of such a relationship would automatically prohibit them from using Apple-patented technology.
So are you somehow suggesting that a patent infringement injunction against an Android 3rd party developer wouldn't hold up simply because the 3rd party developer doesn't have an existing relationship with Apple.
No, that's not what I'm trying to say.
It would hold up in a court, but it wouldn't do much if any good.
All a dev or hacker has to do is write or modify the app and upload it to the internet on a few forums or maybe some offshore servers where Apple has no jurisdiction. Once it's on the net, there's no way of getting it back.
By the time Apple got a hold of it and sent a C&D, the dev has probably already stopped distributing the app himself anyhow. That's why I say most will just throw it in the garbage because they probably already complied to Apple's C&D before the app was even examined and a C&D sent.
Also, what happens if the IP infringer does it anonymously or is located in a country where IPs aren't recognized?
It would hold up in a court, but it wouldn't do much if any good.
All a dev or hacker has to do is write or modify the app and upload it to the internet on a few forums or maybe some offshore servers where Apple has no jurisdiction. Once it's on the net, there's no way of getting it back.
By the time Apple got a hold of it and sent a C&D, the dev has probably already stopped distributing the app himself anyhow. That's why I say most will just throw it in the garbage because they probably already complied to Apple's C&D before the app was even examined and a C&D sent.
Also, what happens if the IP infringer does it anonymously or is located in a country where IPs aren't recognized?
So you are essentially describing intentional abandon-ware? As a way to get around IP laws? That doesn't work so well because the dev is still responsible for infringement. Remember the Psystar case where the infringing company only sold a few hundred units ever? Apple will grind down an asshat out of general principle.
In response to the other side of your post, if the dev changes their implementation to non-infringing Apple would be happy as well. That would make a C&D latter fully complied with.
The worst thing a dev could do would be to toss the letter, they get no protection by doing that, and actually put themselves in a deeper hole as then an infringements from that point forward have the potential to be considered willful, tripling damages. Triple of almost nothing is still nothing, but the effect is far larger then the necessary check.
Comments
Microsoft seem happy to do this already.
He may have copied it when developing Android.
Now the law is quite black and white on this whether it was "inadvertent" or not, it was stolen and HTC has been found guilty so far of using it.
"Inadvertently" picking something of a shelf in a store and walking out with it is no defence.
Source code to the function, Rubin is the link.
It looks like Rubin may have inadvertently seen the source code for this, when he was working at Apple with other engineers involved with this specific patent.
He may have copied it when developing Android.
Now the law is quite black and white on this whether it was "inadvertent" or not, it was stolen and HTC has been found guilty so far of using it.
"Inadvertently" picking something of a shelf in a store and walking out with it is no defence.
Source code to the function, Rubin is the link.
These patents don't deal with source codes...if they did fewer of these patents would hold any water.
did vbulletin steal from Apple too?
disqus?
Microsoft? (well...bad example lol)
Chrome? Firefox? IE? hotmail? Yahoo? Etc...etc...etc
no? If source codes were required for software patents software patents would be a lot weaker than they are.
I can patent A hinge...but I can't patent THE hinge. Physical objects need more specifics...I can't patent the idea of a hinge.
Software patents allow you to patent the "method and apparatus for..." almost anything effectively patenting the idea of something.
If there is a common problem...and 100 engineers code 100 ways to get from point A to B...should the first person to get to B get to tell the other 99 that their 99 different ways of getting the same result are STOLEN!!!!!??
I get that you love Apple...but don't be closed minded.
Infringe...yes... (specifically due to how software patents are handled) stole? no. Had any of Apple's source code been found in Android source code (Freely available) Apple would've shut down Android a long time ago.
I don't know if that's the reason 2.3 and up aren't included in the ruling or not, or if it's for other reasons such as changed functionality. Apparently you found a link making that claim?
EDIT: Apple originally filed the case in early April 2010. Android 2.2 was not yet announced, and the first HTC phone with "Froyo" was several months after that. I suppose Apple may have amended it's claim after 2.2 started appearing in HTC smartphones, but that would beg the question why 2.3/Gingerbread wasn't also added via an amended claim.
HTC's statement on this issue is very clear:
"However, the ‘647 patent is a small UI experience and HTC will completely remove it from all of our phones soon.”
They aren't talking about a workaround here. They're talking about complete removal.
So, for example, in a future firmware update, ALL new HTC phones imported into the USA will no longer allow you to tap on a URL within an SMS message to automatically pull up the web browser. Or tap on a phone number within an email to automatically pull up the phone dialer. Check back in 2019 when the patent expires.
HTC's statement on this issue is very clear:
"However, the ?647 patent is a small UI experience and HTC will completely remove it from all of our phones soon.?
They aren't talking about a workaround here. They're talking about complete removal.
So, for example, in a future firmware update, ALL new HTC phones imported into the USA will no longer allow you to tap on a URL within an SMS message to automatically pull up the web browser. Or tap on a phone number within an email to automatically pull up the phone dialer. Check back in 2019 when the patent expires.
Yay progress.
/s
HTC's statement on this issue is very clear:
"However, the ?647 patent is a small UI experience and HTC will completely remove it from all of our phones soon.?
They aren't talking about a workaround here. They're talking about complete removal.
So, for example, in a future firmware update, ALL new HTC phones imported into the USA will no longer allow you to tap on a URL within an SMS message to automatically pull up the web browser. Or tap on a phone number within an email to automatically pull up the phone dialer. Check back in 2019 when the patent expires.
What's going to stop future HTC owners from just going to the app stores or wherever and just downloading the original, a modified, or a different SMS app that has this feature?
What's going to stop future HTC owners from just going to the app stores or wherever and just downloading the original, a modified, or a different SMS app that has this feature?
Either laziness or a ban on said apps.
Either laziness or a ban on said apps.
Totally agree about the laziness aspect, but there's no way to ban an app on android. You can install apps from anywhere.
Totally agree about the laziness aspect, but there's no way to ban an app on android. You can install apps from anywhere.
And Apple would seek out whoever's doing it and do the same to them as they've done to HTC. Eventually they'll get a clue or they'll be sued.
And Apple would seek out whoever's doing it and do the same to them as they've done to HTC. Eventually they'll get a clue or they'll be sued.
I don't think Apple would sue some small time hacker or developer for releasing a feature like this on android for a few simple reasons.
What would they get out of it.....his lunch money?
Apple suing a developer, talk about bad publicity and a good way to upset other developers.
Tim Berners Lee, the inventor of the WWW has said he was inspired by Hypercard's capabilities and he figured out how to hyperlink documents between servers, another clearly independent advance. And he did so programming on a NeXT box, using Apple provided APIs and capabilities. Notice Apple never rained on the parade of an obviously independent discovery even though it indirectly depended on Apple tech (I say Apple because Apple bought NeXT very shortly after Berners Lee finished his initial work and NeXT OS became OS X).
Apple (aside from Steve and other former Apple employees) was not involved with NeXT in any way when Berners-Lee successfully developed a working version of HTTP on NeXT hardware. This happened well before Apple bought NeXT in 1997.
From Wikipedia:
A NeXT Computer was used by Berners-Lee as the world's first web server and also to write the first web browser, WorldWideWeb, in 1990. By Christmas 1990, Berners-Lee had built all the tools necessary for a working Web:[9] the first web browser (which was a web editor as well); the first web server; and the first web pages,[10] which described the project itself. On August 6, 1991, he posted a short summary of the World Wide Web project on the alt.hypertext newsgroup.[11] This date also marked the debut of the Web as a publicly available service on the Internet. The first photo on the web was uploaded by Berners-Lee in 1992, an image of the CERN house band Les Horribles Cernettes.
What's is interesting is just how deeply Steve has impacted the world, not just in consumer devices, but in areas like bringing the WWW to the public. Would Berners-Lee had been [as] successful/inspired if HyperCard and the NeXT hardware not been available?
Apple suing a developer, talk about bad publicity and a good way to upset other developers.
They'd be suing Android developers.
They'd be suing Android developers.
Android developer or not, a lot of developers from all platforms, including IOS, would be receiving a negative vibe.
IMO, if Apple went this route, it would lower my feelings of Apple to the same level as Sony.
Apple (aside from Steve and other former Apple employees) was not involved with NeXT in any way when Berners-Lee successfully developed a working version of HTTP on NeXT hardware. This happened well before Apple bought NeXT in 1997.
That's true. But Once Apple paid it's money, it became Apple's IP, so the correct reference to it from that point forward is "Apple's". Doesn't matter that it was developed outside and brought in, the distinction is only of historical interest (which I fully indicated it as NeXT derived already so you aren't bringing anything new to the subject), not legal.
From Wikipedia:
What's is interesting is just how deeply Steve has impacted the world, not just in consumer devices, but in areas like bringing the WWW to the public. Would Berners-Lee had been [as] successful/inspired if HyperCard and the NeXT hardware not been available?
Probably not. None of the tools/ideas he used and adapted existed anywhere else. Eventually something like the internet would have been invented, but probably later and much more Microsoft derived.
Android developer or not, a lot of developers from all platforms, including IOS, would be receiving a negative vibe.
IMO, if Apple went this route, it would lower my feelings of Apple to the same level as Sony.
Apple already uses C&D letters and revokes dev status even with Apple 3rd party devs if it suits their purposes because Apple thinks the dev broke a rule or agreement. Why on earth would they shy away from sending one to an Android dev for using Apple IP?
Apple already uses C&D letters and revokes dev status even with Apple 3rd party devs if it suits their purposes because Apple thinks the dev broke a rule or agreement. Why on earth would they shy away from sending one to an Android dev for using Apple IP?
Apple can send C&Ds and revokes to IOS devs because there is an agreement in place.
Sending a C&D to an android dev will just end up in the garbage and I don't think to many android devs would care if Apple wouldn't recognize them as an IOS dev, because they're probably not one anyhow.
Android developer or not, a lot of developers from all platforms, including IOS, would be receiving a negative vibe.
IMO, if Apple went this route, it would lower my feelings of Apple to the same level as Sony.
Apple never opened the Pandora's box of root kits like Sony did, nothing Apple have done stoops so low.
Apple can send C&Ds and revokes to IOS devs because there is an agreement in place.
Sending a C&D to an android dev will just end up in the garbage and I don't think to many android devs would care if Apple wouldn't recognize them as an IOS dev, because they're probably not one anyhow.
So are you somehow suggesting that a patent infringement injunction against an Android 3rd party developer wouldn't hold up simply because the 3rd party developer doesn't have an existing relationship with Apple?
You've got it backwards -- the only way a 3rd party can possibly have permission to use any Apple-patented technology would be because they had previously entered into such a relationship -- either directly with Apple, or else with a patent licensing pool to which Apple contributes. The absence of such a relationship would automatically prohibit them from using Apple-patented technology.
So are you somehow suggesting that a patent infringement injunction against an Android 3rd party developer wouldn't hold up simply because the 3rd party developer doesn't have an existing relationship with Apple.
No, that's not what I'm trying to say.
It would hold up in a court, but it wouldn't do much if any good.
All a dev or hacker has to do is write or modify the app and upload it to the internet on a few forums or maybe some offshore servers where Apple has no jurisdiction. Once it's on the net, there's no way of getting it back.
By the time Apple got a hold of it and sent a C&D, the dev has probably already stopped distributing the app himself anyhow. That's why I say most will just throw it in the garbage because they probably already complied to Apple's C&D before the app was even examined and a C&D sent.
Also, what happens if the IP infringer does it anonymously or is located in a country where IPs aren't recognized?
No, that's not what I'm trying to say.
It would hold up in a court, but it wouldn't do much if any good.
All a dev or hacker has to do is write or modify the app and upload it to the internet on a few forums or maybe some offshore servers where Apple has no jurisdiction. Once it's on the net, there's no way of getting it back.
By the time Apple got a hold of it and sent a C&D, the dev has probably already stopped distributing the app himself anyhow. That's why I say most will just throw it in the garbage because they probably already complied to Apple's C&D before the app was even examined and a C&D sent.
Also, what happens if the IP infringer does it anonymously or is located in a country where IPs aren't recognized?
So you are essentially describing intentional abandon-ware? As a way to get around IP laws? That doesn't work so well because the dev is still responsible for infringement. Remember the Psystar case where the infringing company only sold a few hundred units ever? Apple will grind down an asshat out of general principle.
In response to the other side of your post, if the dev changes their implementation to non-infringing Apple would be happy as well. That would make a C&D latter fully complied with.
The worst thing a dev could do would be to toss the letter, they get no protection by doing that, and actually put themselves in a deeper hole as then an infringements from that point forward have the potential to be considered willful, tripling damages. Triple of almost nothing is still nothing, but the effect is far larger then the necessary check.