Judge interprets '263 patent in Apple's favor in HTC Android appeal

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


    Are you claiming that Google saw the direction via Rubin (who worked at Apple in the 90-ties), or via Schmidt, who was on the board of Apple 2006-2009? Or maybe it was one big coordinated scam planned more than 20 years ago, possibly with Samsung's involvement?



    Well that's obvious really...Andy was locked in Carbonite or something for 11? years then started Android in 2003...then Schmidt and Google bought Android in 05...keeping Rubin then Schmidt using I guess all the charm in the world somehow got Apple to invite him to the board in 2006...then the iPhone was released in 2007...then Google using decades of insider knowledge still took a year to steal iOS and make a direct 1:1 copy of it (a 1:1 copy that looks completely different and hardly functions the same) and yea...today is today....hence the fact that they STOLE!!!! Android from Apple...or Oracle...or both who knows depends who you ask...and yea...infringe = stolen (unless it's Apple) inspire = stolen (unless it's Apple)



    Stolen is definitely the wrong word but no one cares....unless it's Apple.
  • Reply 42 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jj.yuan View Post


    I admit that for a while I liked the mantra, or the sound of it. But, in recent 2-3 years, I have started to doubt seriously Google's intention. I think it is just a cover for whatever evil Google desires to do. As of now, I consider Google to BE the Evil.



    Agreed. It's like sychological projection.
  • Reply 43 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    I wikied Andy Rubin...



    His years at Apple, then General Magic were between 1989-1992 and 1992-1995.



    Steve Jobs was not at Apple from early 1985 to late 1996.



    So Andy and Steve never crossed paths at Apple.



    I don't know that this has any bearing on the patent or the ruling...



    You gotta be kidding me. Why does Jobs have to be at Apple in order for Andy Rubin to have borrowed from them?



    So you're saying the fact Andy Rubin worked at Apple as a junior engineer, under the supervision and alongside the two senior engineers whose names are on Patent '263, at the very same time period Patent '263 was actually being developed, and that Android may have infringed Patent '263 is pure coincidence?





    I wonder how many people here are programmers? I've been a programmer since the early 80's and worked for several firms. I've been in the situation where I'm facing a problem and trying to figure out a solution, and then realizing that problem was solved by the previous company I worked for. Should I use their solution and save time? Or should I come up with a new solution from scratch?



    I got in serious $hit from an employer once because I copied the previous company's solution. I made a note in my "to-do" list that I only implemented their solution to save time and that it would need to be re-written before the software could go into production. Senior staff noticed this and were not happy with me. Even though I planned on re-writing the code, and it was only a temporary use (to save time on getting the project going), they said the possibility that the code could have gone out before the offending section was actually re-written makes it too risky to do what I had done.



    And they were right. Any programmers here will know what I'm talking about. You quickly write a routine that needs optimization, but during testing it never causes any issues. Eventually it gets put further down the priority list and at some point the software gets released with a time-bomb waiting to go off.



    I kept my job, but learned a valuable lesson.



    I find it very likely Andy Rubin borrowed from concepts he learned while at Apple. The real question is whether he did it intentionally (took a shortcut) or un-intentionally (he knew of a solution, but couldn't link it to his time at Apple or working with certain people).



    Based on my experience as a programmer, I find it hard to believe he did it by accident. I can still recall solutions to problems that I worked on 20 years ago. Once you have a "breakthrough" it's something you tend to remember.
  • Reply 44 of 138
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    I think Apple needs to continue to take the fight to the handset makers. They can sue Moto maybe but suing Google directly will be much more difficult since they don't sell anything that can be blocked by the ITC aside from Nexus. Oracle on the other hand would only be looking for damages and licensing fees which ultimately doesn't help Apple all that much.



    Apple could have sued Google directly at any time. People use the ITC to put additional pressure on a party for a quick settlement to a federal lawsuit usually filed at the same time, but being able to ban a product isn't necessary. Apple likely hasn't sued Google directly for strategic reasons. Probably because Apple still relies on many of Google's services, like Maps.



    I for one think Apple should take a more Microsoft like approach. Namely, extract licensing payments. Apple's approach ultimately would lead to the same thing. No court is going to ban Android entirely at this point. The best Apple is going to get is 1) a big one time payout, and 2) a big licensing pay out. Taking a settlement now 1) is less costly, and 2) accomplishes the same thing by making Android more costly. Manufacturers will look for other alternatives to Android.



    Apple needs to focus less on the lawsuits, and more on keeping its iOS system strong. The Microsoft Nokia combo is slowly but surely coming up with a decent product.
  • Reply 45 of 138
    kpomkpom Posts: 660member
    Wow. This could be huge.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post




    So Andy and Steve never crossed paths at Apple.



    I don't know that this has any bearing on the patent or the ruling...



    That fact alone has no bearing. It's entirely possible that Rubin obtained low-level information that was crucial to the patent while he was at Apple.
  • Reply 46 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jason98 View Post


    I am not a patent expert, but this looks like a bad and questionable patent to me. ...



    I'm not a car expert, but the design of that engine looks wrong to me.



    I'm not a doctor, but I don't think surgery is necessary in this case.



    I'm not an artist, but Picasso seemed like a poor artist to me.



    I'm not a writer, but I don't see that correct spelling is really that important.



    I'm not a gardener, but I don't see what's wrong with watering the plants with boiling water.



    I'm not a director, but making a movie seems like a simple thing to me.



    etc. etc.
  • Reply 47 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


    You gotta be kidding me. Why does Jobs have to be at Apple in order for Andy Rubin to have borrowed from them?



    So you're saying the fact Andy Rubin worked at Apple as a junior engineer, under the supervision and alongside the two senior engineers whose names are on Patent '263, at the very same time period Patent '263 was actually being developed, and that Android may have infringed Patent '263 is pure coincidence?





    I wonder how many people here are programmers? I've been a programmer since the early 80's and worked for several firms. I've been in the situation where I'm facing a problem and trying to figure out a solution, and then realizing that problem was solved by the previous company I worked for. Should I use their solution and save time? Or should I come up with a new solution from scratch?



    I got in serious $hit from an employer once because I copied the previous company's solution. I made a note in my "to-do" list that I only implemented their solution to save time and that it would need to be re-written before the software could go into production. Senior staff noticed this and were not happy with me. Even though I planned on re-writing the code, and it was only a temporary use (to save time on getting the project going), they said the possibility that the code could have gone out before the offending section was actually re-written makes it too risky to do what I had done.



    And they were right. Any programmers here will know what I'm talking about. You quickly write a routine that needs optimization, but during testing it never causes any issues. Eventually it gets put further down the priority list and at some point the software gets released with a time-bomb waiting to go off.



    I kept my job, but learned a valuable lesson.



    I find it very likely Andy Rubin borrowed from concepts he learned while at Apple. The real question is whether he did it intentionally (took a shortcut) or un-intentionally (he knew of a solution, but couldn't link it to his time at Apple or working with certain people).



    Based on my experience as a programmer, I find it hard to believe he did it by accident. I can still recall solutions to problems that I worked on 20 years ago. Once you have a "breakthrough" it's something you tend to remember.



    Did you copy the code directly or the method of.implementation blah blah blah?
  • Reply 48 of 138
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    Well that's obvious really...Andy was locked in Carbonite or something for 11? years then started Android in 2003...then Schmidt and Google bought Android in 05...keeping Rubin then Schmidt using I guess all the charm in the world somehow got Apple to invite him to the board in 2006...then the iPhone was released in 2007...then Google using decades of insider knowledge still took a year to steal iOS and make a direct 1:1 copy of it (a 1:1 copy that looks completely different and hardly functions the same) and yea...today is today....hence the fact that they STOLE!!!! Android from Apple...or Oracle...or both who knows depends who you ask...and yea...infringe = stolen (unless it's Apple) inspire = stolen (unless it's Apple)



    Stolen is definitely the wrong word but no one cares....unless it's Apple.







    Google's internal emails concerning Java seem pretty damning. The emails essential admit Google took Java without permission. That is why Google is fighting like hell to bury the emails. The Judge in the case also pretty much said if the emails are heard by a jury, Google probably is going to be paying a big settlement.



    Google also has history of taking other's information as well. For instance, Yelp. To compete with Yelp, Google just took's Yelp's customer reviews and put them in Google Places.
  • Reply 49 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nkalu View Post


    Simply put: Andy Rubin stole Apple's technology to start Android. Sad.



    Technically no.



    Andy Rubin stole the basic idea for this *kind* of OS from Apple. Then he stole the code (Java/Davlik) for most of it from Oracle.



    Andy is an equal opportunity thief.



    I don't really know why anyone is surprised. He's on the record (through court release of documents) as to basically not giving a shit about the concept of IP and theft of same. He's just one of those guys that just thinks everything should be free to take for those that want to take it.
  • Reply 50 of 138
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,924member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    ....hence the fact that they STOLE!!!! Android from Apple...or Oracle...or both who knows depends who you ask...and yea...infringe = stolen (unless it's Apple) inspire = stolen (unless it's Apple)



    Stolen is definitely the wrong word but no one cares....unless it's Apple.



    He sounds a little desperate and defensive today, doesn't he? Stolen, copied, infringing, it's all the same thing. Google is a criminal enterprise, and it's execs should feel pretty happy they've been able to buy their way out of jail so far, although, another one of those clearly criminal acts like the Internet drug sales and they may not get off so easy, as convicted repeat offenders
  • Reply 51 of 138
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sessamoid View Post


    Are you qualified to say they "should" have at least one win by now? I'm no patent attorney, and I'm guessing you aren't either. This shit doesn't happen quickly, either way. And learn how to use the quote function without screwing it up.



    Suing in federal court is a very slow process. That is why most plaintiff's suing for IP infringement claims also file a complaint with the ITC, which is a much quicker process. The ITC, however, can't award monetary damages. It can award a ban on the importation of infringing product. Companies like Apple file ITC complaints hoping they can get some leverage to settle the federal lawsuit in a favorable fashion.
  • Reply 52 of 138
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


    Google's internal emails concerning Java seem pretty damning. The emails essential admit Google took Java without permission. That is why Google is fighting like hell to bury the emails. The Judge in the case also pretty much said if the emails are heard by a jury, Google probably is going to be paying a big settlement.



    Google also has history of taking other's information as well. For instance, Yelp. To compete with Yelp, Google just took's Yelp's customer reviews and put them in Google Places.



    It goes back well before that.



    One of the worst things I've seen any dot com company do was Google's attempt to copy every printed work and put it online to make money from it - without the authors' permission. It just boggles my mind that they couldn't see anything wrong with that.



    And then, after that was shot down, they tried to get Congress to rewrite the copyright laws to allow it.



    Really dishonest company.
  • Reply 53 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chabig View Post


    Why do you think patent infringement relies on copied code? Patent infringement doesn't rely on copied code. In fact, the patent in question has no code! The patent is on a method of performing real-time signal processing on serially transmitted data. If the method Google uses infringes on the claims of Apple's patent, then Android infringes, even if the code is different.



    That said, I am no expert, and am not able to argue this point with certainty.



    Copyright infringement != patent infringement. What you described is the former.
  • Reply 54 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    ... One of the worst things I've seen any dot com company do was Google's attempt to copy every printed work and put it online to make money from it - without the authors' permission. ...



    Speaking as someone who hates Google and purposely avoids all their products ...



    I still have to say that this is a huge exaggeration and misrepresentation of what that project was actually all about.



    It's not worth taking the thread off course to get into it in detail, but this is basically just the Fox media version of what they were doing. Not actually true.
  • Reply 55 of 138
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    They should have had at least one win by now. So far it's only a few preliminary decisions that have both given and taken away. Apparently the blatant copying is nowhere near as cut-and-dried as some have made it out to be.



    NO, your interpretation is incorrect. It takes YEARS for patent cases to finish. Most of the cases that have been talked about over the past two years wont actually start until March! Then a couple more months for rulings, then add a couple years for appeals.



    The fact Apple cases have not been dismissed like the HTC+S3 Graphics case, based on preliminary findings, means the cases are legit for the courts to deal with. We won't know how they really turn out until 2014 at least.



    The impatience brought about by insta-commentary on the internet is just badly skewing your perception of what you think should have happened by now, compared to what is actually possible to have happened by now.



    This ruling appeal win is HUGE in Apples favor. In the span of a few days the Android world went from smug and secure back to facing an engineering change nightmare and very significant judgement costs. Because with patents the wording is everything, and it is the pre-trial battles to define the wording that can make a case almost insta-win or insta-lose.
  • Reply 56 of 138
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    I still have to say that this is a huge exaggeration and misrepresentation of what that project was actually all about. .



    I will agree it is not what Google said it was about. But Google has been getting good at making high-minded wonderful world statements, then using the press releases as cover while they run roughshod over other peoples IP.



    Had Google stayed with the original public domain only digitization plan rather than trying to digitize everything and only pulling a copy if served with a legal request to do it I would agree with you. But they didn't. And as much as it makes searching for info easier, it does so in an illegal way all to often.
  • Reply 57 of 138
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chabig View Post


    Why do you think patent infringement relies on copied code? Patent infringement doesn't rely on copied code. In fact, the patent in question has no code! The patent is on a method of performing real-time signal processing on serially transmitted data. If the method Google uses infringes on the claims of Apple's patent, then Android infringes, even if the code is different.



    That said, I am no expert, and am not able to argue this point with certainty.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cyberzombie View Post


    Copyright infringement != patent infringement. What you described is the former.



    No @Cyberzombie you have it backwards. If the code was the same it would be copyright infringement. The algorithm can be patent protected, and the code can be different as long as it is the same patented algorithm.
  • Reply 58 of 138
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Speaking as someone who hates Google and purposely avoids all their products ...



    I still have to say that this is a huge exaggeration and misrepresentation of what that project was actually all about.



    It's not worth taking the thread off course to get into it in detail, but this is basically just the Fox media version of what they were doing. Not actually true.



    Sure it is - that's information from a number of sources. Google's plan was to make every printed work ever done available on the Internet via their servers - with or without the author's permission.



    For example:

    http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...-copyright-law

    Quote:

    Unfortunately, the biggest obstacle Google faces isn?t technological, but legal. Publishers are accusing Google of copyright infringement, and they?re demanding the company get individual permission from each publisher before it scans their books. So far, Google has resisted the demands, insisting that building such a search engine is a legal fair use under copyright law.



    or

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/te...gy/21book.html

    Quote:

    The suit contends that Google knew or should have known that the Copyright Act "required it to obtain authorization from the holders of the copyrights in these literary works before creating and reproducing digital copies of the works for its commercial use and for the use of others."



    Google has said from the beginning that its program is covered by the "fair use" provision of the copyright law, which allows limited use of protected works. In a statement issued in response to the suit, Google also said its program respected copyrights.



    Although it's not clear how in the world Google would think that fair use would allow them to copy entire works without permission.



    That was (fortunately) shot down, so they went to Congress and tried to get permission to do it if they set up some kind of fund to reimburse authors via some kind of payment schedule that they dreamed up. They were going to allow for 'opt out', but an author who was not familiar with Google's scheme would have had their work included without permission.





    But feel free to provide facts to refute that.
  • Reply 59 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    No @Cyberzombie you have it backwards. If the code was the same it would be copyright infringement. The algorithm can be patent protected, and the code can be different as long as it is the same patented algorithm.



    Like PageRank
  • Reply 60 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    The code can only infringe on a patent if the code itself was copied, not the implementation of a concept.



    You are confusing copyright and patent. In a literal sense, copyright involves copying, but patent law involves invention and implementation of an "idea" which can be implemented in an number of ways, none involving copying in the literal sense, and yet can be illegal use of a patent.



    Let's say that MVC had been patented as part of the SmallTalk language, then MVC could not be implemented unless licensed by the patent holder (say Xerox PARC).
Sign In or Register to comment.