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.
I didn't know that. My point, however, still stands.
Quote:
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.
You can't possibly believe that the iPAQ is in any way similar to the iPhone other than its ability to be held in one hand and the fact that it has a battery.
Quote:
I do recall many people at the time complaining that there was no physical keyboard.
I recall people complaining that the mouse is a 'gimmick'. Your point? How did anyone do any typing on the iPAQ, anyway? Via stylus?
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're comparing "method for detailing and outlining a movie" with an actual finished movie. If I wrote an awesome space opera. First of it's kind. And you write one after I do, obviously inspired from my work but nonetheless different you did not STEAL my work or even copy it.
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.
You're comparing "method for detailing and outlining a movie" with an actual finished movie. If I wrote an awesome space opera. First of it's kind. And you write one after I do, obviously inspired from my work but nonetheless different you did not STEAL my work or even copy it.
And you'd sue if the characters had the same names or if the plot was the same, would you not?
The iPhone represented a paradigm shift. A reluctant one apparently since Apple apparently doesn't like that they shifted the entire industry.
That is a really interesting comment, in that in some ways it goes to the heart of the current situation. Apple must regard bringing about such a paradigm shift as a huge achievement, which leaves one wondering how they would have liked this to play out.
You can't make a shift like that without expecting everyone else to try to follow. Some obviously believe that Apple have since used every legal avenue they could find to try to stifle other companies from following at all. Others believe that they have simply tried reasonably to impede product impersonation. From a business perspective, I suspect that most would agree they would be foolish not to use the edge that patents, trade dress etc. affords them, even if that appears to amount to exploiting obvious flaws in the patent system in general.
If the roles were reversed, and, say, Samsung (or any of the other big players) were in Apple's position, would they be doing things differently?
I didn't know that. My point, however, still stands.
You can't possibly believe that the iPAQ is in any way similar to the iPhone other than its ability to be held in one hand and the fact that it has a battery.
I recall people complaining that the mouse is a 'gimmick'. Your point? How did anyone do any typing on the iPAQ, anyway? Via stylus?
Lobsters.
Why'd you quote yourself?
The point is that there were other phones, be they smart phones or pdas with phone functionality that were touch screen long before the iPhone. And not just the iPaqs but many others.
The fact that Apple popularized the touch screen phone doesn't mean they invented them or that they didn't copy the idea from elsewhere. Many Apple fans seem to believe otherwise, or seem to think that Apple can copy ideas from others, but once they popularize the idea that it belongs to them exclusively.
The unfortunate part is that the patenting system is broken and allows overly broad patents or patenting of obvious things by deep pocketed companies that allows them to attempt to limit competition.
The fact is that Apple took existing ideas and popularized the concept. Once popularized the market for the devices expanded and they were no longer relegated to niche status. Then Android did the same thing, building off not only Apples ideas, but also those ideas which Apple built upon with the iPhone.
In fact they did start pursuing legal action immediately but it takes time to map out a legal strategy and put together a case properly. Their strategy is to keep the entire Android marketplace off balance and to keep applying pressure. They aren't about to let happen with Windows blatantly ripping them off without a fight. As a stockholder I want them to stay mad as hell and keep the pressure on. Google is in fact the new evil and needs to be raked over the coals for their outright theft of Apple IP.
I do t remember them even starting until over 18 months after Android appeared. You can send out a letter of notice the very first day a product comes out, and they could have done that when the Hero first appeared on T-Mobile, but they didn't. My company had 43 patents, as we were small, but there were two ti e's when we did move it, both times we sent letters out within the week of finding a violation. The first one stopped, and the second we took to court (and won).
If you are suing to get money, and you're a troll set up for that purpose, you often want to wait to see how well the product will do. But if it's your patent, it's bad to let the other company do well with it as that will make them much more reluctant to let go.
The point is that there were other phones, be they smart phones or pdas with phone functionality that were touch screen long before the iPhone. And not just the iPaqs but many others.
Correct.
Quote:
The fact that Apple popularized the touch screen phone doesn't mean they invented them or that they didn't copy the idea from elsewhere.
Correct.
Quote:
Many Apple fans seem to believe otherwise, or seem to think that Apple can copy ideas from others, but once they popularize the idea that it belongs to them exclusively.
When Apple owns the patent, it belongs to only who they say it does.
Quote:
The fact is that Apple took existing ideas and popularized the concept.
I say less 'popularized', more 'standardized'.
Quote:
Then Android did the same thing, building off not only Apples ideas, but also those ideas which Apple built upon with the iPhone.
And violating Apple and Oracle's patents in the process, leading to the lawsuits in which they are currently mired. Innovation's wonderful, but you actually have to DO it, not just mooch stuff off others without proper credit.
When Apple owns the patent, it belongs to only who they say it does.
I say less 'popularized', more 'standardized'.
And violating Apple and Oracle's patents in the process, leading to the lawsuits in which they are currently mired. Innovation's wonderful, but you actually have to DO it, not just mooch stuff off others without proper credit.
You left out the part about obvious and overly broad patents and attempts to use this broken system to limit competion.
And <POSSIBLY> violating Oracle's patents in the process, leading to the lawsuits in which they are currently mired.
I think that's probably what you actually meant. With the number of patent re-examination issues with Oracle's case there's no certainty that any of the asserted patent claims will hold up once the USPTO finishes.
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.
Do you not understand the concept of patents? It seems not. There is nothing that is happening today that hasn't happened in the past. All is the same in the field of patents. Except for one thing; FRAND licensing.
Patents weren't conceived to let everyone use them that didn't own them. Is this not understood? In every field, when an invention is patented, it means "Hands off!". This is always what it meant. It was never meant that bottom feeders could swoop in and steal the use.
When companies like Google serially steal other's IP, and then claim that they are "innovating", that's BS, nothing less.
Some companies make it a business model to license out their patents, and others don't. Both is proper. Technology is so complex these days that R&D for even what seems to be a minor design can cost tens of millions. Why should a company allow others to steal that feature? They shouldn't!
If a new technology comes out, and there are some patents by one or more firms that are required to enable that new technology, then industry agrees that those patents MUST be licensed to one and all as FRAND licenses, at fair and equitable rates. Other than those, all other patents aren't required for the technology to function, and therefor don't have to be licensed at all, or can be licensed for whatever the owner thinks they can get.
So when Apple has usability patents that make an OS more pleasant to use, or more convenient, or more attractive, or more obvious, or whatever, they don't have to license that. Let others figure out a way around it. That's the point to a patent. The developer, or owner gets the benefits, and others are forced to do their own R&D. That's how new tech gets spread around, and upgraded. It's not by stealing what's already been invented.
I just can't understand people who think the opposite.
Patent law is actually very liberal. If you take two patented widgets, and put them together in a way that does something new, you can make, use and sell it. You can even patent it!
There is less wrong with patent systems around the world than there is with the governments who refuse to give the offices enough money to hire enough technically knowledgable examiners to have the time to investigate a patent deeply enough. It's a procedural thing more than a conceptual thing.
I do believe that software patents are important, and should be allowed. I also believe that they should stand for 7-10 years instead of 20. That would clear up a lot of the mess.
I'm saying they didn't have inspiration. Or is inspiration no longer a part of progress?
There's nothing wrong with inspiration. That's one of the things the patent system is supposed to encourage. But there is a difference between being inspired, and stealing, or blatant copying.
Originality is in short supply, and that's always been a problem.
Or ... Apple continues on its present course and wins a few more usability patent infringement cases, where Android has to come up with an alternate method which doesn't work as well, or has to drop the feature entirely, then Apple may win over even more Android users. If they win over just one user then they make an additional $200 versus getting $200 by license fees from 20 Android users. So they stand to make more if they can get 5% or more converts (or newcomers who were about to choose Android) by forcing Android to drop features.
I don't even believe what I'm writing cause I don't think Apple is doing this for the money anyway, as Jobs already stated.
Totally agree.
Steve Jobs wanted to BURY the Android. And actually, in a cynical business sense, Apple gets a bigger advantage in Market Share and Developers by creating a headache for Google.
I'm sure it would be worth it to Apple to pay $20 for every Android not sold -- just to honor the wishes of Steve Job's ghost.
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.
I assume therefor that you've read most of the two or three million tech patents, and are well qualified to comment? If not, please don't repeat that old canard.
When companies like Google serially steal other's IP, and then claim that they are "innovating", that's BS, nothing less.
Yet for all the screams about Google stealing IP there's very few cases where patent infringement has been proven. In fact I'll go so far as to say Apple has been found guilty of patent infringement, or "stealing other's IP" as you'd say, as often or more than Google.
The one thing that has come from all the recent lawsuit activity is that Google no longer appears to have a laid-back attitude towards patenting and protecting their own innovations. That's not necessarily either a good or bad thing for the mobile industry, but it's no longer avoidable.
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.
No, but inventing skis is, or the tractor drive, for an example. The point to patents is to do exactly that, force others to come up with other inventions that advance matters. It's not to have everyone else steal or copy said invention, which is what we are seeing in all too many cases.
Comments
Eh. Poor argument...and generally I agree with you but specifically I do not.
What is a poor argument?
What do you generally agree with and what do you specifically disagree with?
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.
crickets
What doesn't matter?
I wasn't replying to you for that.
You do realized the original iPaq predates iPod.
I didn't know that. My point, however, still stands.
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.
You can't possibly believe that the iPAQ is in any way similar to the iPhone other than its ability to be held in one hand and the fact that it has a battery.
I do recall many people at the time complaining that there was no physical keyboard.
I recall people complaining that the mouse is a 'gimmick'. Your point? How did anyone do any typing on the iPAQ, anyway? Via stylus?
crickets
Lobsters.
Why'd you quote yourself?
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're comparing "method for detailing and outlining a movie" with an actual finished movie. If I wrote an awesome space opera. First of it's kind. And you write one after I do, obviously inspired from my work but nonetheless different you did not STEAL my work or even copy it.
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.
iMac.
What is a poor argument?
What do you generally agree with and what do you specifically disagree with?
Your position on the ipaq and iPhone. Yes touchscreen phones existed pre-iphone but they were different. Hardly comparable except for some details.
The iPhone represented a paradigm shift. A reluctant one apparently since Apple apparently doesn't like that they shifted the entire industry.
You're comparing "method for detailing and outlining a movie" with an actual finished movie. If I wrote an awesome space opera. First of it's kind. And you write one after I do, obviously inspired from my work but nonetheless different you did not STEAL my work or even copy it.
And you'd sue if the characters had the same names or if the plot was the same, would you not?
The iPhone represented a paradigm shift. A reluctant one apparently since Apple apparently doesn't like that they shifted the entire industry.
That is a really interesting comment, in that in some ways it goes to the heart of the current situation. Apple must regard bringing about such a paradigm shift as a huge achievement, which leaves one wondering how they would have liked this to play out.
You can't make a shift like that without expecting everyone else to try to follow. Some obviously believe that Apple have since used every legal avenue they could find to try to stifle other companies from following at all. Others believe that they have simply tried reasonably to impede product impersonation. From a business perspective, I suspect that most would agree they would be foolish not to use the edge that patents, trade dress etc. affords them, even if that appears to amount to exploiting obvious flaws in the patent system in general.
If the roles were reversed, and, say, Samsung (or any of the other big players) were in Apple's position, would they be doing things differently?
I wasn't replying to you for that.
I didn't know that. My point, however, still stands.
You can't possibly believe that the iPAQ is in any way similar to the iPhone other than its ability to be held in one hand and the fact that it has a battery.
I recall people complaining that the mouse is a 'gimmick'. Your point? How did anyone do any typing on the iPAQ, anyway? Via stylus?
Lobsters.
Why'd you quote yourself?
The point is that there were other phones, be they smart phones or pdas with phone functionality that were touch screen long before the iPhone. And not just the iPaqs but many others.
The fact that Apple popularized the touch screen phone doesn't mean they invented them or that they didn't copy the idea from elsewhere. Many Apple fans seem to believe otherwise, or seem to think that Apple can copy ideas from others, but once they popularize the idea that it belongs to them exclusively.
The unfortunate part is that the patenting system is broken and allows overly broad patents or patenting of obvious things by deep pocketed companies that allows them to attempt to limit competition.
The fact is that Apple took existing ideas and popularized the concept. Once popularized the market for the devices expanded and they were no longer relegated to niche status. Then Android did the same thing, building off not only Apples ideas, but also those ideas which Apple built upon with the iPhone.
In fact they did start pursuing legal action immediately but it takes time to map out a legal strategy and put together a case properly. Their strategy is to keep the entire Android marketplace off balance and to keep applying pressure. They aren't about to let happen with Windows blatantly ripping them off without a fight. As a stockholder I want them to stay mad as hell and keep the pressure on. Google is in fact the new evil and needs to be raked over the coals for their outright theft of Apple IP.
I do t remember them even starting until over 18 months after Android appeared. You can send out a letter of notice the very first day a product comes out, and they could have done that when the Hero first appeared on T-Mobile, but they didn't. My company had 43 patents, as we were small, but there were two ti e's when we did move it, both times we sent letters out within the week of finding a violation. The first one stopped, and the second we took to court (and won).
If you are suing to get money, and you're a troll set up for that purpose, you often want to wait to see how well the product will do. But if it's your patent, it's bad to let the other company do well with it as that will make them much more reluctant to let go.
The point is that there were other phones, be they smart phones or pdas with phone functionality that were touch screen long before the iPhone. And not just the iPaqs but many others.
Correct.
The fact that Apple popularized the touch screen phone doesn't mean they invented them or that they didn't copy the idea from elsewhere.
Correct.
Many Apple fans seem to believe otherwise, or seem to think that Apple can copy ideas from others, but once they popularize the idea that it belongs to them exclusively.
When Apple owns the patent, it belongs to only who they say it does.
The fact is that Apple took existing ideas and popularized the concept.
I say less 'popularized', more 'standardized'.
Then Android did the same thing, building off not only Apples ideas, but also those ideas which Apple built upon with the iPhone.
And violating Apple and Oracle's patents in the process, leading to the lawsuits in which they are currently mired. Innovation's wonderful, but you actually have to DO it, not just mooch stuff off others without proper credit.
Correct.
Correct.
When Apple owns the patent, it belongs to only who they say it does.
I say less 'popularized', more 'standardized'.
And violating Apple and Oracle's patents in the process, leading to the lawsuits in which they are currently mired. Innovation's wonderful, but you actually have to DO it, not just mooch stuff off others without proper credit.
You left out the part about obvious and overly broad patents and attempts to use this broken system to limit competion.
Correct
There I fixed it for you.
You left out the part about obvious and overly broad patents and attempts to use this broken system to limit competion.
In the overall case of the Android lawsuits, that's a subjective argument.
Sure, we need patent reform. That doesn't instantaneously mean that all patents need reformed or are 'bad'.
And <POSSIBLY> violating Oracle's patents in the process, leading to the lawsuits in which they are currently mired.
I think that's probably what you actually meant. With the number of patent re-examination issues with Oracle's case there's no certainty that any of the asserted patent claims will hold up once the USPTO finishes.
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.
Do you not understand the concept of patents? It seems not. There is nothing that is happening today that hasn't happened in the past. All is the same in the field of patents. Except for one thing; FRAND licensing.
Patents weren't conceived to let everyone use them that didn't own them. Is this not understood? In every field, when an invention is patented, it means "Hands off!". This is always what it meant. It was never meant that bottom feeders could swoop in and steal the use.
When companies like Google serially steal other's IP, and then claim that they are "innovating", that's BS, nothing less.
Some companies make it a business model to license out their patents, and others don't. Both is proper. Technology is so complex these days that R&D for even what seems to be a minor design can cost tens of millions. Why should a company allow others to steal that feature? They shouldn't!
If a new technology comes out, and there are some patents by one or more firms that are required to enable that new technology, then industry agrees that those patents MUST be licensed to one and all as FRAND licenses, at fair and equitable rates. Other than those, all other patents aren't required for the technology to function, and therefor don't have to be licensed at all, or can be licensed for whatever the owner thinks they can get.
So when Apple has usability patents that make an OS more pleasant to use, or more convenient, or more attractive, or more obvious, or whatever, they don't have to license that. Let others figure out a way around it. That's the point to a patent. The developer, or owner gets the benefits, and others are forced to do their own R&D. That's how new tech gets spread around, and upgraded. It's not by stealing what's already been invented.
I just can't understand people who think the opposite.
Patent law is actually very liberal. If you take two patented widgets, and put them together in a way that does something new, you can make, use and sell it. You can even patent it!
There is less wrong with patent systems around the world than there is with the governments who refuse to give the offices enough money to hire enough technically knowledgable examiners to have the time to investigate a patent deeply enough. It's a procedural thing more than a conceptual thing.
I do believe that software patents are important, and should be allowed. I also believe that they should stand for 7-10 years instead of 20. That would clear up a lot of the mess.
I'm saying they didn't have inspiration. Or is inspiration no longer a part of progress?
There's nothing wrong with inspiration. That's one of the things the patent system is supposed to encourage. But there is a difference between being inspired, and stealing, or blatant copying.
Originality is in short supply, and that's always been a problem.
Or ... Apple continues on its present course and wins a few more usability patent infringement cases, where Android has to come up with an alternate method which doesn't work as well, or has to drop the feature entirely, then Apple may win over even more Android users. If they win over just one user then they make an additional $200 versus getting $200 by license fees from 20 Android users. So they stand to make more if they can get 5% or more converts (or newcomers who were about to choose Android) by forcing Android to drop features.
I don't even believe what I'm writing cause I don't think Apple is doing this for the money anyway, as Jobs already stated.
Totally agree.
Steve Jobs wanted to BURY the Android. And actually, in a cynical business sense, Apple gets a bigger advantage in Market Share and Developers by creating a headache for Google.
I'm sure it would be worth it to Apple to pay $20 for every Android not sold -- just to honor the wishes of Steve Job's ghost.
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.
I assume therefor that you've read most of the two or three million tech patents, and are well qualified to comment? If not, please don't repeat that old canard.
When companies like Google serially steal other's IP, and then claim that they are "innovating", that's BS, nothing less.
Yet for all the screams about Google stealing IP there's very few cases where patent infringement has been proven. In fact I'll go so far as to say Apple has been found guilty of patent infringement, or "stealing other's IP" as you'd say, as often or more than Google.
The one thing that has come from all the recent lawsuit activity is that Google no longer appears to have a laid-back attitude towards patenting and protecting their own innovations. That's not necessarily either a good or bad thing for the mobile industry, but it's no longer avoidable.
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.
No, but inventing skis is, or the tractor drive, for an example. The point to patents is to do exactly that, force others to come up with other inventions that advance matters. It's not to have everyone else steal or copy said invention, which is what we are seeing in all too many cases.