Not in this case since the ideas being defended although started in a different product category are still being implemented by the same company in a different product category that competes with the infringer. It's not Apple's fault that it had decades of experience in desktop computing that it then used in mobile computing.
Tho that particular patent may not be a good example, I have no doubt that there are hundreds or thousands fitting my argument being licensed, disputed, knowingly infringed or not yet discovered in iOS, Android and any other large software collection.
And in courts around the world, one patent at a time, Apple is proving that bits and pieces of the Android OS infringe on iOS. Is this not the court agreeing that Android has infringed (outside the tech world known as 'stolen') parts of Apple's patented intellectual property? If more and more of these infringement cases fall Apple's way, the Android will be shown to be a blatant rip off.
I don't disagree. In many ways Android is clearly modeled on iOS. How successful Apple will be in demonstrating that it is unreasonably copying iOS remains to be seen. For the most part I'm with Apple on this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari
Steve Jobs himself ranted to Eric Schmidt about Android being a 'stolen product'. Steve knew a thing or two about having his company's properties stolen before, which was probably why he was so adamant about Google not pinching Apple's IP this time.
But, as Orlando pointed out, this is not the issue that was being argued. The old accusation was raised again, by GTR I think, that Schmidt used his position with Apple to steal designs/information etc.. AbsoluteDesignz pointed out that there has been a notable lack of any statements or evidence to support that. The request for at least some evidence that it did happen is perfectly reasonable. The response "prove that it didn't happen" is just silly.
Tho that particular patent may not be a good example, I have no doubt that there are hundreds or thousands fitting my argument being licensed, disputed, knowingly infringed or not yet discovered in iOS, Android and any other large software collection.
Then that company/individual has the right to sue once discovered and the alleged infringer has a right to defend itself. None of these cases (as you well know) are cut and dried. Patents can be invalidated, agreements can be reached, etc. None of this is a brand new phenomenon that erupted when android came onto the scene.
Then that company/individual has the right to sue once discovered and the alleged infringer has a right to defend itself. None of these cases (as you well know) are cut and dried. Patents can be invalidated, agreements can be reached, etc. None of this is a brand new phenomenon that erupted when android came onto the scene.
No but it's a problem created by software patents. if it was just a single product involved, say a lawnmower blade, then a determination whether your blade is unique enough for patent protection is fairly easy. Software patents are far from that, with the added problem of just what are they intended to apply to once granted? Should one that;s awarded for a time clock feature have any bearing on a mobile OS? Not saying that there's a current claim like that, but just trying to say how ridiculous software patent application can be. Software feature patents in a completely unrelated product can be dragged out of a dustbin (or purchased) to be used as a bludgeon to keep competitors at bay or just simply make it too difficult and expensive to even try creating a competing innovative feature or product. I can't imagine that's the kind of protection our fore-bearers really intended.
If Google and Apple were just starting out today with iOS and Android but limited bank accounts they'd both be gone within a year, put out of business by legal fees.
No but it's a problem created by software patents. if it was just a single product involved, say a lawnmower blade, then a determination whether your blade is unique enough for patent protection is fairly easy. Software patents are far from that, with the added problem of just what are they intended to apply to?
IRL nearly ALL options have drawbacks and removing software patents could (and IMO would) have just as many if not more than having them. Also, I think your example of a lawnmower blade is a bit problematic because "simple" products actually involve such subtle differentiations that determining its uniqueness is not simple at all.
IRL nearly ALL options have drawbacks and removing software patents could (and IMO would) have just as many if not more than having them. Also, I think your example of a lawnmower blade is a bit problematic because "simple" products actually involve such subtle differentiations that determining its uniqueness is not simple at all.
Then I suppose my idea for a new kind of lawnmower blade may be off the table.
In any case there's no reason for an either/or on software patents. Europe has much stricter requirements for the granting of one. As an example, Amazon's One-Click passed muster here. In Europe it was a no-go, failing in the obviousness test.
This brings up a very good point that has been mentioned on this forum before.
When you see a person on the street using a smartphone, it's generally an iPhone.
Where are the 700,000 Android devices per day that are being sold?
It makes you curious.
Sales figures are distorted by the BYGO or free phone offers for Android phones. T has to recognize the rest of the phone related subscription revenue over the life of the contract.
Then I suppose my idea for a new kind of lawnmower blade may be off the table.
In any case there's no reason for an either/or on software patents. Europe has much stricter requirements for the granting of one. As an example, Amazon's One-Click passed muster here. In Europe it was a no-go, failing in the obviousness test.
Now I have zero problem with revisiting the patent system at all so I can definitely agree with you there. I just completely disagree with people who want to throw out the baby with the bath water just because his or her favored company is in the crosshairs of a lawsuit (and yes that includes Apple).
...an AT&T authorized reseller--not a corporate AT&T store. They couldn't do the return for her and she was pissed--not understanding the difference between a corporate store and an authorized reseller. Anyway, the interesting part was when the woman behind the counter came out and told her, point blank [in quotes for clarity, but this is paraphrased]: "I would have sold you an iPhone--they do not have the issue you describe and people never bring them back unhappy. But the resellers work on commission and so they push other phones."
I do not know if this is true, ...
This is absolutely true, and I can also list off several other things resellers do that the corporate store doesn't do, and a few things the corporate store will do that calling customer service won't do.
Resellers have been known to
1. Push the device with the largest commission, they only get their commission if the new subscriber stays on service for a minimum of 6 months.
2. Make the buyer sign a contract that they will pay them damages if they cancel before they get their commission. (This is why you have to go back to the reseller to do everything correctly.)
3. "Pay off your old contract" by calling in as your mother or spouse and saying you died or went to Iraq. BTW, this no longer works, don't try it.
4. Call in to CS as the customer, and try to get illegal promo combinations attached (because they get more commissions for every bolt-on.) Likewise calling in as the customer to cancel service or change promos without permission after the commission is credited.
Corporate stores do all of the above as well, but it's easier for CS to see who is trying to pull something since their name will be all over it. Corporate stores are more known for calling into customer service to get "CS blamed" for something instead of themselves. This happens, but CS can't file complaints about corporate store reps because it's too much work. The unwritten policy is that corporate stores can do everything CS can do, as they have the same tools. Only resellers don't have any tools, and thus have to call their reseller contact (not CS) with their reseller ID to do anything.
If you want to make sure you're not getting ripped off, you have to buy the phone direct via the website (the computer gets no commission.) Even the phone direct sales people are known for bad bolt-on combinations for commission fraud. There is actually no reason to buy phones at stores since you'll be pressured into something you don't want.
Thank you Steven N. ! Duckduckgo is a GREAT search engine! Thank you so much. I will suggest it widely. So much cleaner, great results. Compared to goggle it rocks!
Another thread full of hair splitting, legalistic arguments attempting to defend the proposition that Google's, Samsung's, er al. shameless rip off of iOS and the iPhone is somehow OK. Morally, they're thieves, end of story.
And if Apple released such a car, I'm sure you'd would it to be the most brilliant thing ever. Do you people have to examine everything with a single frequency band-pass filter? Why can't see some good and some bad in what every organization does?
Except that Apple isn't interested in such things as Ads providing 97% of their income as it does with Google. So if Apple did come out with such a car, they wouldn't be interested in bombarding you with Ads, or forced purchases, because they would have made a 25% profit when they sold you the car, whereas Google would have given away the OS for it, and would need the Ad income. Thats a big difference, and you have to understand it.
I don't disagree. In many ways Android is clearly modeled on iOS. How successful Apple will be in demonstrating that it is unreasonably copying iOS remains to be seen. For the most part I'm with Apple on this one.
But, as Orlando pointed out, this is not the issue that was being argued. The old accusation was raised again, by GTR I think, that Schmidt used his position with Apple to steal designs/information etc.. AbsoluteDesignz pointed out that there has been a notable lack of any statements or evidence to support that. The request for at least some evidence that it did happen is perfectly reasonable. The response "prove that it didn't happen" is just silly.
One reason why it's not likely we would ever see any evidence for that it because it's almost impossible to prove it. Even if you know something was done, as long as it was just word of mouth, you need the people who did it to come forward and admit to it? Do you think that would happen?
And if it did, Schmitt and Google would be the target of the biggest lawsuit we've seen yet, and they would lose.
No but it's a problem created by software patents. if it was just a single product involved, say a lawnmower blade, then a determination whether your blade is unique enough for patent protection is fairly easy. Software patents are far from that, with the added problem of just what are they intended to apply to once granted? Should one that;s awarded for a time clock feature have any bearing on a mobile OS? Not saying that there's a current claim like that, but just trying to say how ridiculous software patent application can be. Software feature patents in a completely unrelated product can be dragged out of a dustbin (or purchased) to be used as a bludgeon to keep competitors at bay or just simply make it too difficult and expensive to even try creating a competing innovative feature or product. I can't imagine that's the kind of protection our fore-bearers really intended.
If Google and Apple were just starting out today with iOS and Android but limited bank accounts they'd both be gone within a year, put out of business by legal fees.
Your entire argument seems to be that since software products are so complex today, software patents should be eliminated. That's a strange reason. Hardware and electronic products can be just a complex, even more so when talking about big commercial products such as airliners as an example. So patents should be eliminated altogether to follow your reasoning down its logical path.
I see no reason why software patents are bad. They are needed just as they are in every field. It would be worse if software was copyrighted, as some code is. Then the copyright would never run out.
There are two problems with these patents. The first is that no government is willing to spend what they should to hire the needed number of examiners, so some patents that shouldn't be granted slip through.
The second it that software patents should be issues for a shorter term, say 7 to 10 years, rather than 20. Solve both of those problems and things would be much better.
Then I suppose my idea for a new kind of lawnmower blade may be off the table.
In any case there's no reason for an either/or on software patents. Europe has much stricter requirements for the granting of one. As an example, Amazon's One-Click passed muster here. In Europe it was a no-go, failing in the obviousness test.
On the other hand, the EU could be wrong. This is another case where one company comes up with something that no one else thought of. I've always wondered how people could think something was obvious when many thousands of skilled people in a field haven thought of something that one person finally did think of, and made workable. Why would that be thought of as obvious? Just because people aren't happy with the thought that one company owns it? Not a good reason.
I think the Eu is screwed up on many levels. I'll tell you one thing, if the company that came up was from the SU they wouldn't have ruled that way.
Another thread full of hair splitting, legalistic arguments attempting to defend the proposition that Google's, Samsung's, er al. shameless rip off of iOS and the iPhone is somehow OK. Morally, they're thieves, end of story.
Yep. That just about sums it up.
I skipped pp. 2 - 4, since I could pretty much predict what was going on.
PS: Nice to see AD being told to take a hike. What a useless, value-destroying poster!
One reason why it's not likely we would ever see any evidence for that it because it's almost impossible to prove it. Even if you know something was done, as long as it was just word of mouth, you need the people who did it to come forward and admit to it? Do you think that would happen?
And if it did, Schmitt and Google would be the target of the biggest lawsuit we've seen yet, and they would lose.
Would it be misrepresenting you to summarize your argument as "we have no evidence for our assumption of what happened so we'll make up for that by requiring anyone questioning our unsubstantiated position to prove that we are wrong"?
That is certainly the argument that I was disputing.
If Google didn't come out so fast with an OS and phone that looked and worked so much like the iPhone, no one would suspect Eric. But Google was somehow able to pull off what BB and even MS failed to do and Google didn't even have experience building phones or OS's.
All you people who don't think Apple's board of directors at least know a little bit about Apple's plans, just think back to all those times Al Gore has made little statements about upcoming products. A board of directors deals with budgets, and to design, develop, market and mass produce something as complicated an iPhone... it's unrealistic to believe that they didn't know at least general details of the device and its product strategy.
About Android not being a platform... I don't know WTF Android is. Google's business strategy with the Android has been mind boggingly stupid, but thats probably just an indication of how desperate they were at first to get the product out in the wild. In any case, you know something is wrong when one of your competitors (MS) is making more money off your OS than you are.
It all makes me wonder if Google is just waiting until the right time when all their licensees are completely dependent on Android, then they will be free to charge whatever they want/
Comments
Not in this case since the ideas being defended although started in a different product category are still being implemented by the same company in a different product category that competes with the infringer. It's not Apple's fault that it had decades of experience in desktop computing that it then used in mobile computing.
Tho that particular patent may not be a good example, I have no doubt that there are hundreds or thousands fitting my argument being licensed, disputed, knowingly infringed or not yet discovered in iOS, Android and any other large software collection.
And in courts around the world, one patent at a time, Apple is proving that bits and pieces of the Android OS infringe on iOS. Is this not the court agreeing that Android has infringed (outside the tech world known as 'stolen') parts of Apple's patented intellectual property? If more and more of these infringement cases fall Apple's way, the Android will be shown to be a blatant rip off.
I don't disagree. In many ways Android is clearly modeled on iOS. How successful Apple will be in demonstrating that it is unreasonably copying iOS remains to be seen. For the most part I'm with Apple on this one.
Steve Jobs himself ranted to Eric Schmidt about Android being a 'stolen product'. Steve knew a thing or two about having his company's properties stolen before, which was probably why he was so adamant about Google not pinching Apple's IP this time.
But, as Orlando pointed out, this is not the issue that was being argued. The old accusation was raised again, by GTR I think, that Schmidt used his position with Apple to steal designs/information etc.. AbsoluteDesignz pointed out that there has been a notable lack of any statements or evidence to support that. The request for at least some evidence that it did happen is perfectly reasonable. The response "prove that it didn't happen" is just silly.
Tho that particular patent may not be a good example, I have no doubt that there are hundreds or thousands fitting my argument being licensed, disputed, knowingly infringed or not yet discovered in iOS, Android and any other large software collection.
Then that company/individual has the right to sue once discovered and the alleged infringer has a right to defend itself. None of these cases (as you well know) are cut and dried. Patents can be invalidated, agreements can be reached, etc. None of this is a brand new phenomenon that erupted when android came onto the scene.
Then that company/individual has the right to sue once discovered and the alleged infringer has a right to defend itself. None of these cases (as you well know) are cut and dried. Patents can be invalidated, agreements can be reached, etc. None of this is a brand new phenomenon that erupted when android came onto the scene.
No but it's a problem created by software patents. if it was just a single product involved, say a lawnmower blade, then a determination whether your blade is unique enough for patent protection is fairly easy. Software patents are far from that, with the added problem of just what are they intended to apply to once granted? Should one that;s awarded for a time clock feature have any bearing on a mobile OS? Not saying that there's a current claim like that, but just trying to say how ridiculous software patent application can be. Software feature patents in a completely unrelated product can be dragged out of a dustbin (or purchased) to be used as a bludgeon to keep competitors at bay or just simply make it too difficult and expensive to even try creating a competing innovative feature or product. I can't imagine that's the kind of protection our fore-bearers really intended.
If Google and Apple were just starting out today with iOS and Android but limited bank accounts they'd both be gone within a year, put out of business by legal fees.
No but it's a problem created by software patents. if it was just a single product involved, say a lawnmower blade, then a determination whether your blade is unique enough for patent protection is fairly easy. Software patents are far from that, with the added problem of just what are they intended to apply to?
IRL nearly ALL options have drawbacks and removing software patents could (and IMO would) have just as many if not more than having them. Also, I think your example of a lawnmower blade is a bit problematic because "simple" products actually involve such subtle differentiations that determining its uniqueness is not simple at all.
IRL nearly ALL options have drawbacks and removing software patents could (and IMO would) have just as many if not more than having them. Also, I think your example of a lawnmower blade is a bit problematic because "simple" products actually involve such subtle differentiations that determining its uniqueness is not simple at all.
Then I suppose my idea for a new kind of lawnmower blade may be off the table.
In any case there's no reason for an either/or on software patents. Europe has much stricter requirements for the granting of one. As an example, Amazon's One-Click passed muster here. In Europe it was a no-go, failing in the obviousness test.
This brings up a very good point that has been mentioned on this forum before.
When you see a person on the street using a smartphone, it's generally an iPhone.
Where are the 700,000 Android devices per day that are being sold?
It makes you curious.
Sales figures are distorted by the BYGO or free phone offers for Android phones. T has to recognize the rest of the phone related subscription revenue over the life of the contract.
Key would be unit comparisons.
Then I suppose my idea for a new kind of lawnmower blade may be off the table.
In any case there's no reason for an either/or on software patents. Europe has much stricter requirements for the granting of one. As an example, Amazon's One-Click passed muster here. In Europe it was a no-go, failing in the obviousness test.
Now I have zero problem with revisiting the patent system at all so I can definitely agree with you there. I just completely disagree with people who want to throw out the baby with the bath water just because his or her favored company is in the crosshairs of a lawsuit (and yes that includes Apple).
...an AT&T authorized reseller--not a corporate AT&T store. They couldn't do the return for her and she was pissed--not understanding the difference between a corporate store and an authorized reseller. Anyway, the interesting part was when the woman behind the counter came out and told her, point blank [in quotes for clarity, but this is paraphrased]: "I would have sold you an iPhone--they do not have the issue you describe and people never bring them back unhappy. But the resellers work on commission and so they push other phones."
I do not know if this is true, ...
This is absolutely true, and I can also list off several other things resellers do that the corporate store doesn't do, and a few things the corporate store will do that calling customer service won't do.
Resellers have been known to
1. Push the device with the largest commission, they only get their commission if the new subscriber stays on service for a minimum of 6 months.
2. Make the buyer sign a contract that they will pay them damages if they cancel before they get their commission. (This is why you have to go back to the reseller to do everything correctly.)
3. "Pay off your old contract" by calling in as your mother or spouse and saying you died or went to Iraq. BTW, this no longer works, don't try it.
4. Call in to CS as the customer, and try to get illegal promo combinations attached (because they get more commissions for every bolt-on.) Likewise calling in as the customer to cancel service or change promos without permission after the commission is credited.
Corporate stores do all of the above as well, but it's easier for CS to see who is trying to pull something since their name will be all over it. Corporate stores are more known for calling into customer service to get "CS blamed" for something instead of themselves. This happens, but CS can't file complaints about corporate store reps because it's too much work. The unwritten policy is that corporate stores can do everything CS can do, as they have the same tools. Only resellers don't have any tools, and thus have to call their reseller contact (not CS) with their reseller ID to do anything.
If you want to make sure you're not getting ripped off, you have to buy the phone direct via the website (the computer gets no commission.) Even the phone direct sales people are known for bad bolt-on combinations for commission fraud. There is actually no reason to buy phones at stores since you'll be pressured into something you don't want.
Appreciate your input here in this forum.
Do you mind not calling me a dude?
It's very sexist.
Actually, females call each other "dude" constantly where I live.
And if Apple released such a car, I'm sure you'd would it to be the most brilliant thing ever. Do you people have to examine everything with a single frequency band-pass filter? Why can't see some good and some bad in what every organization does?
Except that Apple isn't interested in such things as Ads providing 97% of their income as it does with Google. So if Apple did come out with such a car, they wouldn't be interested in bombarding you with Ads, or forced purchases, because they would have made a 25% profit when they sold you the car, whereas Google would have given away the OS for it, and would need the Ad income. Thats a big difference, and you have to understand it.
Great idea for a courtroom ploy!
Defendant:
"Your honor, let's shift the burden of proof and disprove the theory the prosecuting attorney did it"
The basis of Roman law, which many EU countries rely upon.
I don't disagree. In many ways Android is clearly modeled on iOS. How successful Apple will be in demonstrating that it is unreasonably copying iOS remains to be seen. For the most part I'm with Apple on this one.
But, as Orlando pointed out, this is not the issue that was being argued. The old accusation was raised again, by GTR I think, that Schmidt used his position with Apple to steal designs/information etc.. AbsoluteDesignz pointed out that there has been a notable lack of any statements or evidence to support that. The request for at least some evidence that it did happen is perfectly reasonable. The response "prove that it didn't happen" is just silly.
One reason why it's not likely we would ever see any evidence for that it because it's almost impossible to prove it. Even if you know something was done, as long as it was just word of mouth, you need the people who did it to come forward and admit to it? Do you think that would happen?
And if it did, Schmitt and Google would be the target of the biggest lawsuit we've seen yet, and they would lose.
No but it's a problem created by software patents. if it was just a single product involved, say a lawnmower blade, then a determination whether your blade is unique enough for patent protection is fairly easy. Software patents are far from that, with the added problem of just what are they intended to apply to once granted? Should one that;s awarded for a time clock feature have any bearing on a mobile OS? Not saying that there's a current claim like that, but just trying to say how ridiculous software patent application can be. Software feature patents in a completely unrelated product can be dragged out of a dustbin (or purchased) to be used as a bludgeon to keep competitors at bay or just simply make it too difficult and expensive to even try creating a competing innovative feature or product. I can't imagine that's the kind of protection our fore-bearers really intended.
If Google and Apple were just starting out today with iOS and Android but limited bank accounts they'd both be gone within a year, put out of business by legal fees.
Your entire argument seems to be that since software products are so complex today, software patents should be eliminated. That's a strange reason. Hardware and electronic products can be just a complex, even more so when talking about big commercial products such as airliners as an example. So patents should be eliminated altogether to follow your reasoning down its logical path.
I see no reason why software patents are bad. They are needed just as they are in every field. It would be worse if software was copyrighted, as some code is. Then the copyright would never run out.
There are two problems with these patents. The first is that no government is willing to spend what they should to hire the needed number of examiners, so some patents that shouldn't be granted slip through.
The second it that software patents should be issues for a shorter term, say 7 to 10 years, rather than 20. Solve both of those problems and things would be much better.
Then I suppose my idea for a new kind of lawnmower blade may be off the table.
In any case there's no reason for an either/or on software patents. Europe has much stricter requirements for the granting of one. As an example, Amazon's One-Click passed muster here. In Europe it was a no-go, failing in the obviousness test.
On the other hand, the EU could be wrong. This is another case where one company comes up with something that no one else thought of. I've always wondered how people could think something was obvious when many thousands of skilled people in a field haven thought of something that one person finally did think of, and made workable. Why would that be thought of as obvious? Just because people aren't happy with the thought that one company owns it? Not a good reason.
I think the Eu is screwed up on many levels. I'll tell you one thing, if the company that came up was from the SU they wouldn't have ruled that way.
Another thread full of hair splitting, legalistic arguments attempting to defend the proposition that Google's, Samsung's, er al. shameless rip off of iOS and the iPhone is somehow OK. Morally, they're thieves, end of story.
Yep. That just about sums it up.
I skipped pp. 2 - 4, since I could pretty much predict what was going on.
PS: Nice to see AD being told to take a hike. What a useless, value-destroying poster!
One reason why it's not likely we would ever see any evidence for that it because it's almost impossible to prove it. Even if you know something was done, as long as it was just word of mouth, you need the people who did it to come forward and admit to it? Do you think that would happen?
And if it did, Schmitt and Google would be the target of the biggest lawsuit we've seen yet, and they would lose.
Would it be misrepresenting you to summarize your argument as "we have no evidence for our assumption of what happened so we'll make up for that by requiring anyone questioning our unsubstantiated position to prove that we are wrong"?
That is certainly the argument that I was disputing.
All you people who don't think Apple's board of directors at least know a little bit about Apple's plans, just think back to all those times Al Gore has made little statements about upcoming products. A board of directors deals with budgets, and to design, develop, market and mass produce something as complicated an iPhone... it's unrealistic to believe that they didn't know at least general details of the device and its product strategy.
About Android not being a platform... I don't know WTF Android is. Google's business strategy with the Android has been mind boggingly stupid, but thats probably just an indication of how desperate they were at first to get the product out in the wild. In any case, you know something is wrong when one of your competitors (MS) is making more money off your OS than you are.
It all makes me wonder if Google is just waiting until the right time when all their licensees are completely dependent on Android, then they will be free to charge whatever they want/