Well, LG is a very large panel provider for Apple, and Sharp appears to be supplying panels for the iPad3, using a new, and better version of the LCD. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple moved to someone else for phones as well.
Samsung, of course, is a S. Korean company, as is Hon Hai, their main manufacturer. Apple indirectly employs hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers. The Chinese government isn't about to allow any of their companies to do anything stupid. The Chinese love Apple products, and the government even had a ceremony on Jobs' passing. Ours didn't. Perhaps they value Apple more there than we do here.
Apple isn't suing everyone, just a few companies. MS has threatened more companies than Apple has, and over 55% of Android makers are paying them royalties as a result, from their numbers. now, they're going after the rest.
Hon Hai aka Foxconn is Taiwanese. And there are historical reasons for "friction" between Japan and Korea.
But you see, Android had a voice input and control feature first, and Apple copied it. Did they make changes? Is it an improvement on existing tech? Yeah. So what are we arguing about? Are we saying shut down iOS becuase it copied an Android feature? Aguably much more important the the things apple claims adroid copied. Did google copyright voice control? How broad of a patent could have have?
Apart from Apple introducing voice control in 2009 with the 3GS.
Then there was text to speech demonstrated at the introduction of the Macintosh in 1984.
But you see, Android had a voice input and control feature first, and Apple copied it. Did they make changes? Is it an improvement on existing tech? Yeah. So what are we arguing about? Are we saying shut down iOS becuase it copied an Android feature? Aguably much more important the the things apple claims adroid copied. Did google copyright voice control? How broad of a patent could have have?
First statement is wrong. As it is foundational to the rest of your argument, well, I guess that is out the window too.
Android Voice Actions: introduced around summer 2010
iPhone Voice Commands: introduce summer 2009
Using your logic (weak, wrong and asinine as it is) then Google copied Apple (yet again).
I'm confused. I have Google Voice and it mostly routes calls and translates voicemail to text. I know that you can use voice commands with it if you have an android phone but what does that have to do with Siri?
Siri is a direct copy of google voice, for example. I don't doubt that Apple will try to implement widgets of some sort at some point.
...
Quote:
Google began in January 1996 as a research project by Larry Page and Sergey Brin when they were both PhD students at Stanford University in California.[28]
Apple hired many speech recognition researchers in 1990. After about a year, they demonstrated a technology codenamed Casper. It was released as part of the PlainTalk package in 1993. Although available for all PowerPC Macintoshes and AV 68k machines (it was one of the few applications that made use of the DSP in the Centris 660AV and Quadra 840AV), it was not part of the default system install prior to Mac OS X. The user had to do a custom installation of the OS to get speech recognition capabilities.
If you are going to accuse someone of copying -- you should make sure you correctly identify the copyee and the copyoor.
Edit: To be fair, Moutain Computer Inc. had a voice recognition accessory for the Apple ][ as far back as 1978. I borrowed one for a weekend and it did a pretty good job after you trained it. I couldn't find any info on the 1978 era product, but I found a manual (1981) for a follow-on product called the SuperTalker:
I'm confused. I have Google Voice and it mostly routes calls and translates voicemail to text. I know that you can use voice commands with it if you have an android phone but what does that have to do with Siri?
They're not really comparable at the moment. Google's Voice Actions allows for some things Siri does not, but Siri is way more friendly and capable of much more overall.
Apple's iPhone didn't have a native feature equivalent to Google Voice Actions for Android prior to the iPhone 4S with Siri, so the tables have turned. Sometime in the future it may swing back to advantage Google, or perhaps even Microsoft. Then again perhaps not.
None of the current options will still be applicable 3 years from now anyway IMO. We'll be way beyond today's functions.
If you are going to accuse someone of copying -- you should make sure you correctly identify the copyee and the copyoor.
Edit: To be fair, Moutain Computer Inc. had a voice recognition accessory for the Apple ][ as far back as 1978. I borrowed one for a weekend and it did a pretty good job after you trained it. I couldn't find any info on the 1978 era product, but I found a manual (1981) for a follow-on product called the SuperTalker:
In all honesty when it comes to certain things, voice control/actions/etc being one of them....there is no real existence of copying since the idea itself has existed in some form for nearly half a century in computing.
This is another industry where people will be influenced and then influence, and advance the field rapidly...unless somehow Apple gets broad patents in relation to this but that's another story.
They're not really comparable at the moment. Google's Voice Actions allows for some things Siri does not, but Siri is way more friendly and capable of much more overall.
Apple's iPhone didn't have a native feature equivalent to Google Voice Actions for Android prior to the iPhone 4S with Siri, so the tables have turned. Sometime in the future it may swing back to advantage Google, or perhaps even Microsoft. Then again perhaps not.
None of the current options will still be applicable 3 years from now anyway IMO. We'll be way beyond today's functions.
Thanks! Glad to see you back Gatorguy. I missed your posts.
In all honesty when it comes to certain things, voice control/actions/etc being one of them....there is no real existence of copying since the idea itself has existed in some form for nearly half a century in computing.
This is another industry where people will be influenced and then influence, and advance the field rapidly...unless somehow Apple gets broad patents in relation to this but that's another story.
In all honesty when it comes to certain things, voice control/actions/etc being one of them....there is no real existence of copying since the idea itself has existed in some form for nearly half a century in computing.
This is another industry where people will be influenced and then influence, and advance the field rapidly...unless somehow Apple gets broad patents in relation to this but that's another story.
But what Siri does as an overall experience, is new. That's never been done before in a commercial setting, though I've seen somewhat similar work in the lab. But nothing useful for a handheld device even with the heavy lifting done outside, as Apple does it.
Of course, once one does it, it becomes much easier for others to do as they can figure out much of how it was done.
But what Siri does as an overall experience, is new. That's never been done before in a commercial setting, though I've seen somewhat similar work in the lab. But nothing useful for a handheld device even with the heavy lifting done outside, as Apple does it.
Of course, once one does it, it becomes much easier for others to do as they can figure out much of how it was done.
Which is what I was led to believe drives innovation. Company 1 does A...company 2 does aB company 1 does aBc etc etc...at no point does company 2 do A but they are inspired by A (a) when they make B...
the way the patent system is now if company 2 does anything similar to A despite the fact that it is not A doesn't take code from A and aside from some functionality is different than A altogether company 1 can still somehow have a patent on what company 2 did and ask for an injunction
the way the patent system is now if company 2 does anything similar to A despite the fact that it is not A doesn't take code from A and aside from some functionality is different than A altogether company 1 can still somehow have a patent on what company 2 did and ask for an injunction
But that's still not the way it works. It works the way I stated. Similar isn't a word that makes sense in the patent system. The result can be exactly the same, and a patent can be granted. It depends on what the patent is covering. What I see, is that people don't understand the patent system well enough, and so have simple ideas as to what it's for, how it works, and what can be done using it.
So a gesture can be patented. Of course. That's because it's not just an idea, but an implementation of one. The math beneath it can't be patented, because one can't patent math. That was the problem struggled over in the beginning when some claimed that all programming was math. That not really true, and more than language is math, of course. It's a system of logic, which is different.
But, if I patent a gesture, then others can't use it. This is no different than patenting some simple mechanical device. A friend of mine patented vanes of a specific shape for electrolytic silver recovery machines about 25 years ago. Pretty simple thing. But valid.
I don't understand why some people get bent out of shape over software patents.
One of my favorite descriptions of why software patents are a hindrance to technology and progress is this one:
"The result is that even when you write a program, you are using lots of different ideas, any one of them might be patented by somebody. A pair of them may be patented as a combination by somebody. There might be several different ways of describing one idea which might be patented by various different people. So there are possibly thousands of things, thousands of points of vulnerability in your program, which might be patented by somebody else already.
This is why software patents tend to obstruct the progress of software -- the work of software development. If it were one patent-one product, then these patents wouldn't obstruct the development of products because if you develop a new product, it wouldn't be patented by somebody else already. But when one product corresponds to many different ideas combined, it gets very likely your new product is going to be patented by somebody else already.
In fact, there is economic research now showing just how imposing a patent system on a field where there is incremental innovation can retard progress. You see, the advocates of software patents say "Well, yes, there may be problems, but more important than any problems, the patents must promote innovation, and that is so important it doesn't matter what problems you cause". Of course, they don't say that out loud because it is ridiculous, but implicitly they want you to believe that as long as it promotes progress, that outweighs any possible cost. But actually, there is no reason to believe it does promote progress. We now have a model showing precisely how patents can retard progress. The case where that model can fit describes the software field pretty well; incremental innovation."
The entire speech given at Cambridge can be found here, as well as other links concerning current patent issues, including software.
One of my favorite descriptions of why software patents are a hindrance to technology and progress is this one:
"The result is that even when you write a program, you are using lots of different ideas, any one of them might be patented by somebody. A pair of them may be patented as a combination by somebody. There might be several different ways of describing one idea which might be patented by various different people. So there are possibly thousands of things, thousands of points of vulnerability in your program, which might be patented by somebody else already.
This is why software patents tend to obstruct the progress of software -- the work of software development. If it were one patent-one product, then these patents wouldn't obstruct the development of products because if you develop a new product, it wouldn't be patented by somebody else already. But when one product corresponds to many different ideas combined, it gets very likely your new product is going to be patented by somebody else already.
In fact, there is economic research now showing just how imposing a patent system on a field where there is incremental innovation can retard progress. You see, the advocates of software patents say "Well, yes, there may be problems, but more important than any problems, the patents must promote innovation, and that is so important it doesn't matter what problems you cause". Of course, they don't say that out loud because it is ridiculous, but implicitly they want you to believe that as long as it promotes progress, that outweighs any possible cost. But actually, there is no reason to believe it does promote progress. We now have a model showing precisely how patents can retard progress. The case where that model can fit describes the software field pretty well; incremental innovation."
The entire speech given at Cambridge can be found here, as well as other links concerning current patent issues, including software.
Except that the first paragraph is wrong, and shows that the writer doesn't understand the patent system at all. You can't patent an idea, only the implementation of an idea. How many times have we discussed this?
Stall an is an idiot. He is an embarrassment to the open software advocates who keep their distance from him. He is an example of a political extremist.
All fields have incremental innovation. You think the software business is different? If anything, it's the opposite, with innovation happening faster in software than anywhere else, because the costs are so low.
In any case, it might be a good time for Apple to put out feelers on what it would take to reach "arrangements" with their Android competitors. For all their money and expertise in the tech world, their legal strategies are definitely "flawed", at least according to FOSSPatents today. He even went on to say that because of poorly-conceived legal plans, "In Germany and Australia, it's increasingly likely that Apple will owe Samsung damages due to improperly-granted preliminary injunctions. While Apple can afford this, it's an embarrassment and courts will be more hesitant than ever to grant Apple preliminary injunctions, at least in those jurisdictions."
Changing course and creating a revenue stream rather than a legal cost might be a wiser move.
Comments
Well, LG is a very large panel provider for Apple, and Sharp appears to be supplying panels for the iPad3, using a new, and better version of the LCD. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple moved to someone else for phones as well.
Samsung, of course, is a S. Korean company, as is Hon Hai, their main manufacturer. Apple indirectly employs hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers. The Chinese government isn't about to allow any of their companies to do anything stupid. The Chinese love Apple products, and the government even had a ceremony on Jobs' passing. Ours didn't. Perhaps they value Apple more there than we do here.
Apple isn't suing everyone, just a few companies. MS has threatened more companies than Apple has, and over 55% of Android makers are paying them royalties as a result, from their numbers. now, they're going after the rest.
Hon Hai aka Foxconn is Taiwanese. And there are historical reasons for "friction" between Japan and Korea.
But you see, Android had a voice input and control feature first, and Apple copied it. Did they make changes? Is it an improvement on existing tech? Yeah. So what are we arguing about? Are we saying shut down iOS becuase it copied an Android feature? Aguably much more important the the things apple claims adroid copied. Did google copyright voice control? How broad of a patent could have have?
Apart from Apple introducing voice control in 2009 with the 3GS.
Then there was text to speech demonstrated at the introduction of the Macintosh in 1984.
But you see, Android had a voice input and control feature first, and Apple copied it. Did they make changes? Is it an improvement on existing tech? Yeah. So what are we arguing about? Are we saying shut down iOS becuase it copied an Android feature? Aguably much more important the the things apple claims adroid copied. Did google copyright voice control? How broad of a patent could have have?
First statement is wrong. As it is foundational to the rest of your argument, well, I guess that is out the window too.
Android Voice Actions: introduced around summer 2010
iPhone Voice Commands: introduce summer 2009
Using your logic (weak, wrong and asinine as it is) then Google copied Apple (yet again).
Siri is a direct copy of google voice, for example. I don't doubt that Apple will try to implement widgets of some sort at some point.
...
Google began in January 1996 as a research project by Larry Page and Sergey Brin when they were both PhD students at Stanford University in California.[28]
Google
Apple hired many speech recognition researchers in 1990. After about a year, they demonstrated a technology codenamed Casper. It was released as part of the PlainTalk package in 1993. Although available for all PowerPC Macintoshes and AV 68k machines (it was one of the few applications that made use of the DSP in the Centris 660AV and Quadra 840AV), it was not part of the default system install prior to Mac OS X. The user had to do a custom installation of the OS to get speech recognition capabilities.
PlainTalk
If you are going to accuse someone of copying -- you should make sure you correctly identify the copyee and the copyoor.
Edit: To be fair, Moutain Computer Inc. had a voice recognition accessory for the Apple ][ as far back as 1978. I borrowed one for a weekend and it did a pretty good job after you trained it. I couldn't find any info on the 1978 era product, but I found a manual (1981) for a follow-on product called the SuperTalker:
Mountain Computer Supertalker
I'm confused. I have Google Voice and it mostly routes calls and translates voicemail to text. I know that you can use voice commands with it if you have an android phone but what does that have to do with Siri?
They're not really comparable at the moment. Google's Voice Actions allows for some things Siri does not, but Siri is way more friendly and capable of much more overall.
Apple's iPhone didn't have a native feature equivalent to Google Voice Actions for Android prior to the iPhone 4S with Siri, so the tables have turned. Sometime in the future it may swing back to advantage Google, or perhaps even Microsoft. Then again perhaps not.
None of the current options will still be applicable 3 years from now anyway IMO. We'll be way beyond today's functions.
Google
PlainTalk
If you are going to accuse someone of copying -- you should make sure you correctly identify the copyee and the copyoor.
Edit: To be fair, Moutain Computer Inc. had a voice recognition accessory for the Apple ][ as far back as 1978. I borrowed one for a weekend and it did a pretty good job after you trained it. I couldn't find any info on the 1978 era product, but I found a manual (1981) for a follow-on product called the SuperTalker:
Mountain Computer Supertalker
In all honesty when it comes to certain things, voice control/actions/etc being one of them....there is no real existence of copying since the idea itself has existed in some form for nearly half a century in computing.
This is another industry where people will be influenced and then influence, and advance the field rapidly...unless somehow Apple gets broad patents in relation to this but that's another story.
They're not really comparable at the moment. Google's Voice Actions allows for some things Siri does not, but Siri is way more friendly and capable of much more overall.
Apple's iPhone didn't have a native feature equivalent to Google Voice Actions for Android prior to the iPhone 4S with Siri, so the tables have turned. Sometime in the future it may swing back to advantage Google, or perhaps even Microsoft. Then again perhaps not.
None of the current options will still be applicable 3 years from now anyway IMO. We'll be way beyond today's functions.
Thanks! Glad to see you back Gatorguy. I missed your posts.
In all honesty when it comes to certain things, voice control/actions/etc being one of them....there is no real existence of copying since the idea itself has existed in some form for nearly half a century in computing.
This is another industry where people will be influenced and then influence, and advance the field rapidly...unless somehow Apple gets broad patents in relation to this but that's another story.
Yes...
Hon Hai aka Foxconn is Taiwanese. And there are historical reasons for "friction" between Japan and Korea.
Yes, sorry, I did know that. Friction between those companies has little to do with the situation.
In all honesty when it comes to certain things, voice control/actions/etc being one of them....there is no real existence of copying since the idea itself has existed in some form for nearly half a century in computing.
This is another industry where people will be influenced and then influence, and advance the field rapidly...unless somehow Apple gets broad patents in relation to this but that's another story.
But what Siri does as an overall experience, is new. That's never been done before in a commercial setting, though I've seen somewhat similar work in the lab. But nothing useful for a handheld device even with the heavy lifting done outside, as Apple does it.
Of course, once one does it, it becomes much easier for others to do as they can figure out much of how it was done.
But what Siri does as an overall experience, is new. That's never been done before in a commercial setting, though I've seen somewhat similar work in the lab. But nothing useful for a handheld device even with the heavy lifting done outside, as Apple does it.
Of course, once one does it, it becomes much easier for others to do as they can figure out much of how it was done.
Which is what I was led to believe drives innovation. Company 1 does A...company 2 does aB company 1 does aBc etc etc...at no point does company 2 do A but they are inspired by A (a) when they make B...
the way the patent system is now if company 2 does anything similar to A despite the fact that it is not A doesn't take code from A and aside from some functionality is different than A altogether company 1 can still somehow have a patent on what company 2 did and ask for an injunction
the way the patent system is now if company 2 does anything similar to A despite the fact that it is not A doesn't take code from A and aside from some functionality is different than A altogether company 1 can still somehow have a patent on what company 2 did and ask for an injunction
But that's still not the way it works. It works the way I stated. Similar isn't a word that makes sense in the patent system. The result can be exactly the same, and a patent can be granted. It depends on what the patent is covering. What I see, is that people don't understand the patent system well enough, and so have simple ideas as to what it's for, how it works, and what can be done using it.
So a gesture can be patented. Of course. That's because it's not just an idea, but an implementation of one. The math beneath it can't be patented, because one can't patent math. That was the problem struggled over in the beginning when some claimed that all programming was math. That not really true, and more than language is math, of course. It's a system of logic, which is different.
But, if I patent a gesture, then others can't use it. This is no different than patenting some simple mechanical device. A friend of mine patented vanes of a specific shape for electrolytic silver recovery machines about 25 years ago. Pretty simple thing. But valid.
I don't understand why some people get bent out of shape over software patents.
I don't understand why some people get bent out of shape over software patents.
Perhaps because of silliness like this:
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....11210181900395
or this:
http://www.applepatent.com/2011/04/o...of-patent.html
One of my favorite descriptions of why software patents are a hindrance to technology and progress is this one:
"The result is that even when you write a program, you are using lots of different ideas, any one of them might be patented by somebody. A pair of them may be patented as a combination by somebody. There might be several different ways of describing one idea which might be patented by various different people. So there are possibly thousands of things, thousands of points of vulnerability in your program, which might be patented by somebody else already.
This is why software patents tend to obstruct the progress of software -- the work of software development. If it were one patent-one product, then these patents wouldn't obstruct the development of products because if you develop a new product, it wouldn't be patented by somebody else already. But when one product corresponds to many different ideas combined, it gets very likely your new product is going to be patented by somebody else already.
In fact, there is economic research now showing just how imposing a patent system on a field where there is incremental innovation can retard progress. You see, the advocates of software patents say "Well, yes, there may be problems, but more important than any problems, the patents must promote innovation, and that is so important it doesn't matter what problems you cause". Of course, they don't say that out loud because it is ridiculous, but implicitly they want you to believe that as long as it promotes progress, that outweighs any possible cost. But actually, there is no reason to believe it does promote progress. We now have a model showing precisely how patents can retard progress. The case where that model can fit describes the software field pretty well; incremental innovation."
The entire speech given at Cambridge can be found here, as well as other links concerning current patent issues, including software.
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/it-strat...-case-2107497/
Perhaps because of silliness like this:
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....11210181900395
or this:
http://www.applepatent.com/2011/04/o...of-patent.html
One of my favorite descriptions of why software patents are a hindrance to technology and progress is this one:
"The result is that even when you write a program, you are using lots of different ideas, any one of them might be patented by somebody. A pair of them may be patented as a combination by somebody. There might be several different ways of describing one idea which might be patented by various different people. So there are possibly thousands of things, thousands of points of vulnerability in your program, which might be patented by somebody else already.
This is why software patents tend to obstruct the progress of software -- the work of software development. If it were one patent-one product, then these patents wouldn't obstruct the development of products because if you develop a new product, it wouldn't be patented by somebody else already. But when one product corresponds to many different ideas combined, it gets very likely your new product is going to be patented by somebody else already.
In fact, there is economic research now showing just how imposing a patent system on a field where there is incremental innovation can retard progress. You see, the advocates of software patents say "Well, yes, there may be problems, but more important than any problems, the patents must promote innovation, and that is so important it doesn't matter what problems you cause". Of course, they don't say that out loud because it is ridiculous, but implicitly they want you to believe that as long as it promotes progress, that outweighs any possible cost. But actually, there is no reason to believe it does promote progress. We now have a model showing precisely how patents can retard progress. The case where that model can fit describes the software field pretty well; incremental innovation."
The entire speech given at Cambridge can be found here, as well as other links concerning current patent issues, including software.
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/it-strat...-case-2107497/
Except that the first paragraph is wrong, and shows that the writer doesn't understand the patent system at all. You can't patent an idea, only the implementation of an idea. How many times have we discussed this?
Stall an is an idiot. He is an embarrassment to the open software advocates who keep their distance from him. He is an example of a political extremist.
All fields have incremental innovation. You think the software business is different? If anything, it's the opposite, with innovation happening faster in software than anywhere else, because the costs are so low.
Changing course and creating a revenue stream rather than a legal cost might be a wiser move.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...itigation.html