and so they say no, we'll pay you $2.00 maybe $4.00 per device, but that's all. Now the numbers chance a lot?
Skip
They don't set the terms of a licensing agreement. Apple could effectively name their price, then offer the same licensing deal to every single manufacturer. Result = unending revenue enhancement while Apple plows their newfound lucre into R&D.
No. And wp7 wouldn't have existed as is nor would webOS nor any modern OS. That's life. That's technology. That's progress.
It's been that way for centuries. Yet now companies look to block all elements of inspiration through litigation.
Well... if one company believes another company is using their ideas.... their hard work... without any sort of compensation... I think they have the right to be pissed.
This sorta reminds me of a quote from my favorite movie:
"I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done, and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you've patented it, and packaged it, you've slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it..."
You're right... that's progress. Everybody borrows from everybody else.
Now imagine if Windows came before the Mac... the G1 came before the iPhone... and the Galaxy Tab came before the iPad. But they didn't.
Apple provides a lot of inspiration... huh...
But wait a minute... why couldn't Microsoft have made WP7? Are you saying they don't have the skills? Why couldn't Palm have made WebOS? Certainly RIM could have dreamed up a touchscreen phone, couldn't they?
You basically just admitted that all these other companies have no vision... no motivation to go in a new direction... unless Apple shows them the way.
Actually... that's not progress at all... that's laziness
No, no. If Samsung cut off Apple, most all of their contract business, which is estimated to be about 40% of their business,would be in danger of leaving. I didn't say that Apple was 40% of Samsung's business. But they are more than 5% of their contract business, closer to 15%.
I've always thought this was merged in the litigation plan.
With already a "they made us do it" in the mindset customers will more easily accept alternative technology supplies.
Well... if one company believes another company is using their ideas.... their hard work... without any sort of compensation... I think they have the right to be pissed.
This sorta reminds me of a quote from my favorite movie:
"I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done, and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you've patented it, and packaged it, you've slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it..."
You're right... that's progress. Everybody borrows from everybody else.
Now imagine if Windows came before the Mac... the G1 came before the iPhone... and the Galaxy Tab came before the iPad. But they didn't.
Apple provides a lot of inspiration... huh...
But wait a minute... why couldn't Microsoft have made WP7? Are you saying they don't have the skills? Why couldn't Palm have made WebOS? Certainly RIM could have dreamed up a touchscreen phone, couldn't they?
You basically just admitted that all these other companies have no vision... no motivation to go in a new direction... unless Apple shows them the way.
Actually... that's not progress at all... that's laziness
I'm saying they didn't have inspiration. Or is inspiration no longer a part of progress?
I'm saying they didn't have inspiration. Or is inspiration no longer a part of progress?
You're saying they were not inspired by the iPhone.
I'm saying they were ABSOLUTELY inspired by the iPhone.
If not... when exactly did they realize they needed to switch things up? Are you telling me all these companies were on the brink of something new... but Apple just beat them to it? Hardly...
Look at the picture I showed earlier... or in the bottom right of this photo. That's the phone Palm announced just 2 days before Apple announced the iPhone. Clearly they weren't thinking too far ahead. The red Centro was released even later in 2007... as well as more similar models the next year.
What made Palm do this massive transformation into WebOS and the Palm Pre in 2009? Would they have gotten there without the iPhone?
As for the rest of those phones... there wasn't anything on the horizon for them either.
I'm fairly certain Google had plans to put Android on the phones of the day... phones that looked like the picture below.
Then something happened. An entire industry doesn't shift by accident... something must have sparked it. I think it was the iPhone.
It's fine to be inspired by something... just give credit where credit is due.
Forgot, unless you are Apple you are crap. regardless that your company makes billions each year. Brilliant.
Apple's more profitable strategy - Waste millions in lawyers fees, winning and then simply having your win countered by a simple software update (HTC)
Microsofts Strategy - Strike deals with handset makers and rake in the cash for doing nothing but having a patent.
Your right, Apple all the way.
The difference is that Microsoft no longer have any significant share of the mobile phone market and have nothing to lose. For now. So why not rake in the cash, from mobile phone makers, for doing nothing but having a patent? But do you think for a second that Microsoft would license out key technology to Android if they had any appreciable share of the mobile phone market? If that were the case, why would Microsoft want to sell to their competitors a license to use technology that would make their mobile devices better? Do you see them licensing out key technology of their Kinect to Sony or Nintendo? I'm sure they can rake in some serious cash there, for doing nothing but having a patent. If Sony stole key technology from the Kinect to make their own version of it, don't you think Microsoft would be willing to spend millions in lawyers and court cost to sue Sony? Or do you think they should just offer them a license to use that stolen technology, so they can rake in the cash for doing nothing but having a patent?
I wonder whathappens when all these Chinese and Korean companies get tired of Apple's antics and decide not to renew contracts? Who then builds Apple LCDs and memory, cases ect..... Apple manufactures nothing. I understand that Apple is a payday for many but all these lawsuits will play a toll, plus some of these companies will do as they are told by their countries (China). It is a dangerous game. If Samsung pulled the plug right now on all Apple LCDs, Apple would be screwed. So would Samsung with lawsuits but Apple would be hurting while Samsung went on producing Samsung products and battle the courts for years and during those years Apple would lose billions.
Read the patent better. Apple doesn't own multi-touch like you think they do (and wish they do or whatever else you people long for)
It doesn't matter that Apple only has a patent for one way for a touch screen device to detect a multi-touch gesture. What matters is if Android (or the device maker) is using the same way. If so, they have to find another way for their devices to detect multi-touch gestures. And I'm sure there are many other ways. And maybe most of the other ways won't be as good as the way Apple does it. But some where out there is a better way and by Apple not licensing out their patent, some one is bound to find it. That's how patents inspires innovation.
It doesn't matter that Apple only has a patent for one way for a touch screen device to detect a multi-touch gesture. What matters is if Android (or the device maker) is using the same way. If so, they have to find another way for their devices to detect multi-touch gestures. And I'm sure there are many other ways. And maybe most of the other ways won't be as good as the way Apple does it. But some where out there is a better way and by Apple not licensing out their patent, some one is bound to find it. That's how patents inspires innovation.
I'm aware of that but as far as I've read anywhere Apple specific gestures seem not to be on any lawsuit platter.
And my comments regarding innovation had to do with people seemingly upset with Android for daring to offer up a multitouch icon based UI despite the fact that the similarities between the two platforms pretty much end there (especially in Android 4.0 where the only similarities between iOS 5 and Android 4 are the notifications and folder creation respectively.
It doesn't matter that Apple only has a patent for one way for a touch screen device to detect a multi-touch gesture. What matters is if Android (or the device maker) is using the same way. If so, they have to find another way for their devices to detect multi-touch gestures. And I'm sure there are many other ways. And maybe most of the other ways won't be as good as the way Apple does it. But some where out there is a better way and by Apple not licensing out their patent, some one is bound to find it. That's how patents inspires innovation.
Only problem is that allot of these patents are so vague that almost anything touch screen detection can fall under it. And the patent system is so broke, companies have been doing this for years and now can not? Makes no sense. And this goes for most tech patents. They are so vague it is crazy.
<...>But some where out there is a better way and by Apple not licensing out their patent, some one is bound to find it. That's how patents inspires innovation.
That's wishful thinking. Reinventing the wheel does not drive innovation.
If there is a better way to do things, someone will find it regardless of patent restrictions on the existing approaches.
After reading through yet another of these threads where the fandroids come on and defend intellectual property theft, and other disreputable practices, it simply seems that what they are arguing is that they want an iPhone, they should be able to have an iPhone, but they just don't want to, for childish reasons, want to buy their iPhone from Apple. So much effort spent on justifying stealing other people's work.
Would Hollywood be willing to license any company that takes their intellectual property and creates DVDs of movies? Or the game publishers license illegal copies of their games?
Just because someone can copy it does not mean it is correct to do so.
After reading through yet another of these threads where the fandroids come on and defend intellectual property theft, and other disreputable practices, it simply seems that what they are arguing is that they want an iPhone, they should be able to have an iPhone, but they just don't want to, for childish reasons, want to buy their iPhone from Apple. So much effort spent on justifying stealing other people's work.
There is no way you read the thread if that's what you came to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDreamworx
On a vaguely related note:
Would Hollywood be willing to license any company that takes their intellectual property and creates DVDs of movies? Or the game publishers license illegal copies of their games?
Just because someone can copy it does not mean it is correct to do so.
You are aware that that doesn't follow right?
You are comparing a finished product, a film to often vague software patents that can be "copied" even if the source code is 100% different.
That's like saying I copied the traditional mousetrap with my mousetrapper that vacuums mice into a cage because it is "an apparatus that baits and traps and/or kills mice"
the idea of a touch screen phone. Have you never heard of an iPaq? I was making calls on a touch screen iPaq in 2003. Funny, apple even copied naming convention from compaq.
the idea of a touch screen phone. Have you never heard of an iPaq? I was making calls on a touch screen iPaq in 2003. Funny, apple even copied naming convention from compaq.
Eh. Poor argument...and generally I agree with you but specifically I do not.
I'm not saying that MS is failing, just that if they don't change some of the way they do business, their business will suffer in the long run.
I'd say they are failing if you look at the total history of MS where they were and where they are now. Businesses are either improving, standing still or declining and by almost every metric MS doing really well at the last category.
You'll want to read the thread to see just how pointless this was to bring up.
Yeah, it's not like Apple released a product two years prior whose name had a leading lower-case i or anything.
What doesn't matter?
You do realized the original iPaq predates iPod. Check your dates. I didn't say 2003 was the original date of the iPaq, just that I was using one in 2003. Also, it seems quite relevant to many of the comments on this thread, showing pictures of phones with keyboards and saying iPhone was some new paradigm. It certainly popularized the concept, as most felt a physical keyboard was necessary, but it wasn't the first. I do recall many people at the time complaining that there was no physical keyboard.
Comments
and so they say no, we'll pay you $2.00 maybe $4.00 per device, but that's all. Now the numbers chance a lot?
Skip
They don't set the terms of a licensing agreement. Apple could effectively name their price, then offer the same licensing deal to every single manufacturer. Result = unending revenue enhancement while Apple plows their newfound lucre into R&D.
No. And wp7 wouldn't have existed as is nor would webOS nor any modern OS. That's life. That's technology. That's progress.
It's been that way for centuries. Yet now companies look to block all elements of inspiration through litigation.
Well... if one company believes another company is using their ideas.... their hard work... without any sort of compensation... I think they have the right to be pissed.
This sorta reminds me of a quote from my favorite movie:
"I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done, and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you've patented it, and packaged it, you've slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it..."
You're right... that's progress. Everybody borrows from everybody else.
Now imagine if Windows came before the Mac... the G1 came before the iPhone... and the Galaxy Tab came before the iPad. But they didn't.
Apple provides a lot of inspiration... huh...
But wait a minute... why couldn't Microsoft have made WP7? Are you saying they don't have the skills? Why couldn't Palm have made WebOS? Certainly RIM could have dreamed up a touchscreen phone, couldn't they?
You basically just admitted that all these other companies have no vision... no motivation to go in a new direction... unless Apple shows them the way.
Actually... that's not progress at all... that's laziness
No, no. If Samsung cut off Apple, most all of their contract business, which is estimated to be about 40% of their business,would be in danger of leaving. I didn't say that Apple was 40% of Samsung's business. But they are more than 5% of their contract business, closer to 15%.
I've always thought this was merged in the litigation plan.
With already a "they made us do it" in the mindset customers will more easily accept alternative technology supplies.
Well... if one company believes another company is using their ideas.... their hard work... without any sort of compensation... I think they have the right to be pissed.
This sorta reminds me of a quote from my favorite movie:
"I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done, and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you've patented it, and packaged it, you've slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it..."
You're right... that's progress. Everybody borrows from everybody else.
Now imagine if Windows came before the Mac... the G1 came before the iPhone... and the Galaxy Tab came before the iPad. But they didn't.
Apple provides a lot of inspiration... huh...
But wait a minute... why couldn't Microsoft have made WP7? Are you saying they don't have the skills? Why couldn't Palm have made WebOS? Certainly RIM could have dreamed up a touchscreen phone, couldn't they?
You basically just admitted that all these other companies have no vision... no motivation to go in a new direction... unless Apple shows them the way.
Actually... that's not progress at all... that's laziness
I'm saying they didn't have inspiration. Or is inspiration no longer a part of progress?
I'm saying they didn't have inspiration. Or is inspiration no longer a part of progress?
You're saying they were not inspired by the iPhone.
I'm saying they were ABSOLUTELY inspired by the iPhone.
If not... when exactly did they realize they needed to switch things up? Are you telling me all these companies were on the brink of something new... but Apple just beat them to it? Hardly...
Look at the picture I showed earlier... or in the bottom right of this photo. That's the phone Palm announced just 2 days before Apple announced the iPhone. Clearly they weren't thinking too far ahead. The red Centro was released even later in 2007... as well as more similar models the next year.
What made Palm do this massive transformation into WebOS and the Palm Pre in 2009? Would they have gotten there without the iPhone?
As for the rest of those phones... there wasn't anything on the horizon for them either.
I'm fairly certain Google had plans to put Android on the phones of the day... phones that looked like the picture below.
Then something happened. An entire industry doesn't shift by accident... something must have sparked it. I think it was the iPhone.
It's fine to be inspired by something... just give credit where credit is due.
Forgot, unless you are Apple you are crap. regardless that your company makes billions each year. Brilliant.
Apple's more profitable strategy - Waste millions in lawyers fees, winning and then simply having your win countered by a simple software update (HTC)
Microsofts Strategy - Strike deals with handset makers and rake in the cash for doing nothing but having a patent.
Your right, Apple all the way.
The difference is that Microsoft no longer have any significant share of the mobile phone market and have nothing to lose. For now. So why not rake in the cash, from mobile phone makers, for doing nothing but having a patent? But do you think for a second that Microsoft would license out key technology to Android if they had any appreciable share of the mobile phone market? If that were the case, why would Microsoft want to sell to their competitors a license to use technology that would make their mobile devices better? Do you see them licensing out key technology of their Kinect to Sony or Nintendo? I'm sure they can rake in some serious cash there, for doing nothing but having a patent. If Sony stole key technology from the Kinect to make their own version of it, don't you think Microsoft would be willing to spend millions in lawyers and court cost to sue Sony? Or do you think they should just offer them a license to use that stolen technology, so they can rake in the cash for doing nothing but having a patent?
I wonder whathappens when all these Chinese and Korean companies get tired of Apple's antics and decide not to renew contracts? Who then builds Apple LCDs and memory, cases ect..... Apple manufactures nothing. I understand that Apple is a payday for many but all these lawsuits will play a toll, plus some of these companies will do as they are told by their countries (China). It is a dangerous game. If Samsung pulled the plug right now on all Apple LCDs, Apple would be screwed. So would Samsung with lawsuits but Apple would be hurting while Samsung went on producing Samsung products and battle the courts for years and during those years Apple would lose billions.
Im sorry, how old are you?
Read the patent better. Apple doesn't own multi-touch like you think they do (and wish they do or whatever else you people long for)
It doesn't matter that Apple only has a patent for one way for a touch screen device to detect a multi-touch gesture. What matters is if Android (or the device maker) is using the same way. If so, they have to find another way for their devices to detect multi-touch gestures. And I'm sure there are many other ways. And maybe most of the other ways won't be as good as the way Apple does it. But some where out there is a better way and by Apple not licensing out their patent, some one is bound to find it. That's how patents inspires innovation.
It doesn't matter that Apple only has a patent for one way for a touch screen device to detect a multi-touch gesture. What matters is if Android (or the device maker) is using the same way. If so, they have to find another way for their devices to detect multi-touch gestures. And I'm sure there are many other ways. And maybe most of the other ways won't be as good as the way Apple does it. But some where out there is a better way and by Apple not licensing out their patent, some one is bound to find it. That's how patents inspires innovation.
I'm aware of that but as far as I've read anywhere Apple specific gestures seem not to be on any lawsuit platter.
And my comments regarding innovation had to do with people seemingly upset with Android for daring to offer up a multitouch icon based UI despite the fact that the similarities between the two platforms pretty much end there (especially in Android 4.0 where the only similarities between iOS 5 and Android 4 are the notifications and folder creation respectively.
It doesn't matter that Apple only has a patent for one way for a touch screen device to detect a multi-touch gesture. What matters is if Android (or the device maker) is using the same way. If so, they have to find another way for their devices to detect multi-touch gestures. And I'm sure there are many other ways. And maybe most of the other ways won't be as good as the way Apple does it. But some where out there is a better way and by Apple not licensing out their patent, some one is bound to find it. That's how patents inspires innovation.
Only problem is that allot of these patents are so vague that almost anything touch screen detection can fall under it. And the patent system is so broke, companies have been doing this for years and now can not? Makes no sense. And this goes for most tech patents. They are so vague it is crazy.
<...>But some where out there is a better way and by Apple not licensing out their patent, some one is bound to find it. That's how patents inspires innovation.
That's wishful thinking. Reinventing the wheel does not drive innovation.
If there is a better way to do things, someone will find it regardless of patent restrictions on the existing approaches.
Would Hollywood be willing to license any company that takes their intellectual property and creates DVDs of movies? Or the game publishers license illegal copies of their games?
Just because someone can copy it does not mean it is correct to do so.
After reading through yet another of these threads where the fandroids come on and defend intellectual property theft, and other disreputable practices, it simply seems that what they are arguing is that they want an iPhone, they should be able to have an iPhone, but they just don't want to, for childish reasons, want to buy their iPhone from Apple. So much effort spent on justifying stealing other people's work.
There is no way you read the thread if that's what you came to.
On a vaguely related note:
Would Hollywood be willing to license any company that takes their intellectual property and creates DVDs of movies? Or the game publishers license illegal copies of their games?
Just because someone can copy it does not mean it is correct to do so.
You are aware that that doesn't follow right?
You are comparing a finished product, a film to often vague software patents that can be "copied" even if the source code is 100% different.
That's like saying I copied the traditional mousetrap with my mousetrapper that vacuums mice into a cage because it is "an apparatus that baits and traps and/or kills mice"
the idea of a touch screen phone. Have you never heard of an iPaq? I was making calls on a touch screen iPaq in 2003. Funny, apple even copied naming convention from compaq.
Eh. Poor argument...and generally I agree with you but specifically I do not.
You are aware that that doesn't follow right?
You're aware that that doesn't MATTER, right?
Say you have legal ownership of a movie script. It's finalized, it's copywritten, but you haven't made the movie yet.
You're okay with me taking it, making a movie based on it, and giving you no credit nor money nor rights?
the idea of a touch screen phone. Have you never heard of an iPaq? I was making calls on a touch screen iPaq in 2003.
You'll want to read the thread to see just how pointless this was to bring up.
Funny, apple even copied naming convention from compaq.
Yeah, it's not like Apple released a product two years prior whose name had a leading lower-case i or anything.
I'm not saying that MS is failing, just that if they don't change some of the way they do business, their business will suffer in the long run.
I'd say they are failing if you look at the total history of MS where they were and where they are now. Businesses are either improving, standing still or declining and by almost every metric MS doing really well at the last category.
You're aware that that doesn't MATTER, right?
Say you have legal ownership of a movie script. It's finalized, it's copywritten, but you haven't made the movie yet.
You're okay with me taking it, making a movie based on it, and giving you no credit nor money nor rights?
You'll want to read the thread to see just how pointless this was to bring up.
Yeah, it's not like Apple released a product two years prior whose name had a leading lower-case i or anything.
I think Compaq do have prior claims on designing computers on napkins though
You're aware that that doesn't MATTER, right?
You'll want to read the thread to see just how pointless this was to bring up.
Yeah, it's not like Apple released a product two years prior whose name had a leading lower-case i or anything.
What doesn't matter?
You do realized the original iPaq predates iPod. Check your dates. I didn't say 2003 was the original date of the iPaq, just that I was using one in 2003. Also, it seems quite relevant to many of the comments on this thread, showing pictures of phones with keyboards and saying iPhone was some new paradigm. It certainly popularized the concept, as most felt a physical keyboard was necessary, but it wasn't the first. I do recall many people at the time complaining that there was no physical keyboard.