As an attorney I can promise you there is no such requirement under Patent law. Companies quietly allow other companies to use patented ideas all the time. Perhaps, you are thinking of Trademark law where indeed one does have to police one's patents.
I think you meant to say 'trademarks'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
With that said, I don't see the point of inventing something, patenting it, and than not benefitting in some way from it. Unlike companies like Microsoft that have little problem licensing their patents, Apple wants to distinguish itself by design. So it doesn't want others to use its ideas.
There is a reason to patent everything in sight even if you're not going to enforce it. Some companies do it for defensive reasons - they patent something simply to prevent others from doing so and putting them out of business. This is often used for marginal inventions where it's not a slam-dunk on proving infringement, but a patent might save you from millions of dollars in legal costs defending your use of the technology.
That's not the case here, but there IS a reason for patenting something and then not enforcing the patent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
This particular patent really is a useful one.
It appears to be. It's one of several patents that won't prevent Motorola and others from making a touch screen phone, but will condemn them to having a clunky interface compared to Apple's smooth, fluid performance.
I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the people who berate Apple would litigate like crazy if their own inventions were copied without permission. That charity feeling of 'they should all settle this' would drain from their bodies when their hard work, time, and money invested was making profits for their competition.
In real world: All Android OEMs exempt two pays licensing/protection fees to MSFT 5-15 dollar per device. MSFT that have done zero innovation in multitouch gets money from Android, and the Fandroid thinks Apple is evil.
But todays Apple is not the same as Apple under Steve. Apple is starting to do the same mistakes that the did in 1985 when Steve left.
Dividend, stock buy back program, 5 month slip of iOS5, 2-3 month slip of SSD 2011 iMacs, no redesign of iPhone, iPad 3 with a subpar A5X SoC, iPad 3 with LTE that only works in America and many more examples.
Tim accepts non perfect products. Steve would never have done it. When TSMC would say "we can't deliver enough wafers for mars launch of iPad" Steve would have gone mad and screamed, maybe even bought TSMC to make it work. Steve would have postponed Ipad3 availability 1-2 month to get a more elegant iPad 3. (double performance, lower power SoC, LTE world wide, not thicker).
For Steve, Apple was not about making money, Apple was about making the best products in the world, that then would make Apple money.
Tim values short term monitory gains by releasing iPad 3 a couple of month to early. Tim wants this money so that Appel can blow 50 billion in dividend and share buy back.
This will change Apples patents. Apple did not make money on its patents. Steve had 2 ways. Either it was industry standard and Appel licensed out its patents for free (like H264). If it was non industry standard patents Steve would refuse to license them out. Steve wanted Google/MSFT to invent their own stuff, not loan ideas from Apple.
Tim will license out Apple patents to make money.
Its sad to see Apple repeat every single mistake that they did when Steve left last time.
History will repeat it self. Apple will have many good years ahead, but the peak of innovation and think different attitude is gone.
The 50 billion that Tim blew really annoys me. Apple could have built its own foundries or bought 1 of Intels 22nm factories. Now Apple is depending on Samsung stuff, the same company that steals ideas from Apple. Its fun how Samsung leaks Apple roadmap. They know exactly what Apple is doing since they deliver the SoC, screen, NAND flash and so on.
You too make my point, again and again, with fierce conviction.
Quote:
They have the right not license any patents that they haven't already made agreements to license. If they feel they can use their tech in-house, instead of getting compensated from 3rd-parties, to better their position financially then they should pursue that.
That's what I said, didn't I? Rephrasing doesn't help much, does it?
Quote:
Except for all the tech they license or buy from other others. No Apple product is built in a bubble and your foolish hyperbole isn't helping any argument you may have.
Pro tip: Hyperbole can be effective when you try to make it funny but when you state something that axiomatically wrong it just comes across as trollish.
The only pro element that I can find is... well in fact, I can't find it.
Let me correct your sentence:
Quote:
[...]but when you state something that I believe is axiomatically wrong it just comes across as trollish
Actually, I think it's much fun making fun of shills like you.
The display of the app icons was not invented by Apple
The swipe to unlock was not invented by Apple
The tablet was not invented by Apple
Apple did not invent the rounded rectangle
...
None of which have any relevance.
Apple never claims to have invented 'touch'. Or 'app icons'. Or 'swipe to unlock'. Or any of the other things you cited.
The way patents work is that Apple claimed specific implementations of those things. You have to read the patent claims rather than a one sentence description on non-technical sites to understand what is being claimed. It is never as simple as you apparently believe.
Oh my goodness I wonder how much money and time was spent in finding something for Apple to retaliate against Motorola with. This is getting out of hand and is both disgusting and outright childish on both parties. Shame on both of you. I hope the judge throws this out of court, it's a ridiculous law suit and there is no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride.
Vital patents? I think not. The '949 patent is a 400 page behemoth, there's bound to be some original ideas in it. However, as with the "data tapping", "overscroll bounceback", "slide-to-unlock image" and "photo gallery page-turning" methods that Mueller reminded about, there will be workarounds. I for one care not one bit whether my page will scroll straight up due to heuristics, or follow precisely my fingers motion when heuristics is turned off.
Lawyers making money, that's what this bickering is in the end. Patents or not, Android is here to stay.
well I HATE that in windows, when you use the scroll bar to get to the end of a list and overshoot the end of the scroll bar, it goes back to where is started from.
really, can't window recognize that i am pulling down the scroll bar to the end, and when i get to the bottom of the bar, it(window contents) should stay at the bottom... i'm holding the mouse buttom down, shouldn't it know that I don't want to leave the scroll bar, but get to the end.?
MINOR problems such as this are what apple solves.(not to say that there is a patent that solves this...) the patent of bouncing the contents when you get to the bottom is a subtle reminder that you have reached the end... is it really needed? perhaps no, but it is better that it is there... hence it is patented
TL;DR. nothing here to see; move along now... ROLF
That's just reality, Motorola are trying to become the ultimate patent trolls, their "reasonable" demand from Microsoft over H.264 patents amounts to $4 billion a year, Microsoft currently pays MPEG-LA $6.5 million a year if it wasn't capped it would be $60 million a year to license all the other essential patents in the pool.
Motorola is a money grubbing extortionist.
You're referring to the cherry-picked standard that Florian Mueller used in the article on Microsoft (who happens to pay Mr. Mueller for his "expertise") and Moto. There's other standards he doesn't mention that ask for much more in the way of royalties. Some FRAND-contributors such as Qualcomm or Nokia and partners asking for more than Motorola does in certain essential standards. The only one Mr. Mueller ever uses for comparison is MPEG-LA. Odd in my view if he's trying to present an honest picture.
In real world: All Android OEMs exempt two pays licensing/protection fees to MSFT 5-15 dollar per device. MSFT that have done zero innovation in multitouch gets money from Android, and the Fandroid thinks Apple is evil.
But todays Apple is not the same as Apple under Steve. Apple is starting to do the same mistakes that the did in 1985 when Steve left.
Dividend, stock buy back program, 5 month slip of iOS5, 2-3 month slip of SSD 2011 iMacs, no redesign of iPhone, iPad 3 with a subpar A5X SoC, iPad 3 with LTE that only works in America and many more examples.
Tim accepts non perfect products. Steve would never have done it. When TSMC would say "we can't deliver enough wafers for mars launch of iPad" Steve would have gone mad and screamed, maybe even bought TSMC to make it work. Steve would have postponed Ipad3 availability 1-2 month to get a more elegant iPad 3. (double performance, lower power SoC, LTE world wide, not thicker).
For Steve, Apple was not about making money, Apple was about making the best products in the world, that then would make Apple money.
Tim values short term monitory gains by releasing iPad 3 a couple of month to early. Tim wants this money so that Appel can blow 50 billion in dividend and share buy back.
This will change Apples patents. Apple did not make money on its patents. Steve had 2 ways. Either it was industry standard and Appel licensed out its patents for free (like H264). If it was non industry standard patents Steve would refuse to license them out. Steve wanted Google/MSFT to invent their own stuff, not loan ideas from Apple.
Tim will license out Apple patents to make money.
Its sad to see Apple repeat every single mistake that they did when Steve left last time.
History will repeat it self. Apple will have many good years ahead, but the peak of innovation and think different attitude is gone.
The 50 billion that Tim blew really annoys me. Apple could have built its own foundries or bought 1 of Intels 22nm factories. Now Apple is depending on Samsung stuff, the same company that steals ideas from Apple. Its fun how Samsung leaks Apple roadmap. They know exactly what Apple is doing since they deliver the SoC, screen, NAND flash and so on.
You have no idea what you're talking about. It's already been said that there is about 3-5 years worth of products on the roadmap that Steve Jobs was involved in.
You complain about the iPhone 4S's design (not a redesign), but you completely ignored the iPhone 3GS. Did you miss that one? It was the same design as the iPhone 3G. Want to guess how that went over with the consumers? IT SOLD MORE THAN THE IPHONE 3G, A LOT MORE! And, it's STILL IN PRODUCTION.
Considering there is well over a year in R&D for a new product, Steve was still around during the new iPad's development.
Just in case you missed it, Apple has been partners with Samsung for a LONG time... just like they were partners with Google, well before Android became what it is.
You really need to do some more research before you come here blabbering about stuff you obviously don't know anything about.
I could go on dissecting your other stupid comments, but it isn't worth my time or effort.
You have no idea what you're talking about. It's already been said that there is about 3-5 years worth of products on the roadmap that Steve Jobs was involved in.
You complain about the iPhone 4S's design (not a redesign), but you completely ignored the iPhone 3GS. Did you miss that one? It was the same design as the iPhone 3G. Want to guess how that went over with the consumers? IT SOLD MORE THAN THE IPHONE 3G, A LOT MORE! And, it's STILL IN PRODUCTION.
Considering there is well over a year in R&D for a new product, Steve was still around during the new iPad's development.
Just in case you missed it, Apple has been partners with Samsung for a LONG time... just like they were partners with Google, well before Android became what it is.
You really need to do some more research before you come here blabbering about stuff you obviously don't know anything about.
I could go on dissecting your other stupid comments, but it isn't worth my time or effort.
Every product he mentioned as being the downfall happened under Steve's watch.
The biggest non-change for the iPhone was between the original iPhone and iPhone 3G. They changed the casing and added 3G but most of the internals were the same. They even moved from a "sophisticated" metal to a "cheap" plastic... under Steve. To make matters worse iOS 2.0 had the most problems with Safari crashing often under version 2.1 or so.
Every product he mentioned as being the downfall happened under Steve's watch..
Exactly.
Even the iPad 3 was probably essentially complete under Jobs' watch. Any products released after the iPad 3 will still have Jobs' influence to a greater or lesser degree. For example, if they introduce a new MBP this month, the basic design and almost all of the details would have been done under Jobs. It's conceivable that Cook might have contributed a small tweak her or there. As time goes on, Cook's influence will be more visible. By 2020 or so, new products will be essentially completely done under Cook (although there would still be some influence from what he's learned from Jobs.
We're still at least a year away from a product that wasn't largely done under Jobs.
Comments
As an attorney I can promise you there is no such requirement under Patent law. Companies quietly allow other companies to use patented ideas all the time. Perhaps, you are thinking of Trademark law where indeed one does have to police one's patents.
I think you meant to say 'trademarks'.
With that said, I don't see the point of inventing something, patenting it, and than not benefitting in some way from it. Unlike companies like Microsoft that have little problem licensing their patents, Apple wants to distinguish itself by design. So it doesn't want others to use its ideas.
There is a reason to patent everything in sight even if you're not going to enforce it. Some companies do it for defensive reasons - they patent something simply to prevent others from doing so and putting them out of business. This is often used for marginal inventions where it's not a slam-dunk on proving infringement, but a patent might save you from millions of dollars in legal costs defending your use of the technology.
That's not the case here, but there IS a reason for patenting something and then not enforcing the patent.
This particular patent really is a useful one.
It appears to be. It's one of several patents that won't prevent Motorola and others from making a touch screen phone, but will condemn them to having a clunky interface compared to Apple's smooth, fluid performance.
I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the people who berate Apple would litigate like crazy if their own inventions were copied without permission. That charity feeling of 'they should all settle this' would drain from their bodies when their hard work, time, and money invested was making profits for their competition.
Exactly. Well said.
In real world: All Android OEMs exempt two pays licensing/protection fees to MSFT 5-15 dollar per device. MSFT that have done zero innovation in multitouch gets money from Android, and the Fandroid thinks Apple is evil.
But todays Apple is not the same as Apple under Steve. Apple is starting to do the same mistakes that the did in 1985 when Steve left.
Dividend, stock buy back program, 5 month slip of iOS5, 2-3 month slip of SSD 2011 iMacs, no redesign of iPhone, iPad 3 with a subpar A5X SoC, iPad 3 with LTE that only works in America and many more examples.
Tim accepts non perfect products. Steve would never have done it. When TSMC would say "we can't deliver enough wafers for mars launch of iPad" Steve would have gone mad and screamed, maybe even bought TSMC to make it work. Steve would have postponed Ipad3 availability 1-2 month to get a more elegant iPad 3. (double performance, lower power SoC, LTE world wide, not thicker).
For Steve, Apple was not about making money, Apple was about making the best products in the world, that then would make Apple money.
Tim values short term monitory gains by releasing iPad 3 a couple of month to early. Tim wants this money so that Appel can blow 50 billion in dividend and share buy back.
This will change Apples patents. Apple did not make money on its patents. Steve had 2 ways. Either it was industry standard and Appel licensed out its patents for free (like H264). If it was non industry standard patents Steve would refuse to license them out. Steve wanted Google/MSFT to invent their own stuff, not loan ideas from Apple.
Tim will license out Apple patents to make money.
Its sad to see Apple repeat every single mistake that they did when Steve left last time.
History will repeat it self. Apple will have many good years ahead, but the peak of innovation and think different attitude is gone.
The 50 billion that Tim blew really annoys me. Apple could have built its own foundries or bought 1 of Intels 22nm factories. Now Apple is depending on Samsung stuff, the same company that steals ideas from Apple. Its fun how Samsung leaks Apple roadmap. They know exactly what Apple is doing since they deliver the SoC, screen, NAND flash and so on.
He countered your point.
You too make my point, again and again, with fierce conviction.
They have the right not license any patents that they haven't already made agreements to license. If they feel they can use their tech in-house, instead of getting compensated from 3rd-parties, to better their position financially then they should pursue that.
That's what I said, didn't I? Rephrasing doesn't help much, does it?
Except for all the tech they license or buy from other others. No Apple product is built in a bubble and your foolish hyperbole isn't helping any argument you may have.
Pro tip: Hyperbole can be effective when you try to make it funny but when you state something that axiomatically wrong it just comes across as trollish.
The only pro element that I can find is... well in fact, I can't find it.
Let me correct your sentence:
[...]but when you state something that I believe is axiomatically wrong it just comes across as trollish
Actually, I think it's much fun making fun of shills like you.
Touch was not invented by Apple
The display of the app icons was not invented by Apple
The swipe to unlock was not invented by Apple
The tablet was not invented by Apple
Apple did not invent the rounded rectangle
...
You too make my point, again and again, with fierce conviction.
That's what I said, didn't I? Rephrasing doesn't help much, does it?
The only pro element that I can find is... well in fact, I can't find it.
Let me correct your sentence:
Actually, I think it's much fun making fun of shills like you.
You've got a bit of verbal diarrhea happening today, Blitz, and the quantity of posts isn't making up for lack of quality.
And we're definitely going to be leaving the 'does he have a girlfriend box?' unchecked after you provided your definition of the word 'fun'.
Well, here are a couple of things.
Touch was not invented by Apple
The display of the app icons was not invented by Apple
The swipe to unlock was not invented by Apple
The tablet was not invented by Apple
Apple did not invent the rounded rectangle
...
None of which have any relevance.
Apple never claims to have invented 'touch'. Or 'app icons'. Or 'swipe to unlock'. Or any of the other things you cited.
The way patents work is that Apple claimed specific implementations of those things. You have to read the patent claims rather than a one sentence description on non-technical sites to understand what is being claimed. It is never as simple as you apparently believe.
a once great company has now become a law firm. the kodak, xerox and aol path et al,
is their destiny.
you can't sue the usa government and expect to win. they have all the money. apple
probably has more money than the usa government now. at least without debt.
Oh my goodness I wonder how much money and time was spent in finding something for Apple to retaliate against Motorola with. This is getting out of hand and is both disgusting and outright childish on both parties. Shame on both of you. I hope the judge throws this out of court, it's a ridiculous law suit and there is no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride.
Stop it you two, I'm going to call your fathers.
You left this out of your post:
"Posted from my Android phone".
Vital patents? I think not. The '949 patent is a 400 page behemoth, there's bound to be some original ideas in it. However, as with the "data tapping", "overscroll bounceback", "slide-to-unlock image" and "photo gallery page-turning" methods that Mueller reminded about, there will be workarounds. I for one care not one bit whether my page will scroll straight up due to heuristics, or follow precisely my fingers motion when heuristics is turned off.
Lawyers making money, that's what this bickering is in the end. Patents or not, Android is here to stay.
well I HATE that in windows, when you use the scroll bar to get to the end of a list and overshoot the end of the scroll bar, it goes back to where is started from.
really, can't window recognize that i am pulling down the scroll bar to the end, and when i get to the bottom of the bar, it(window contents) should stay at the bottom... i'm holding the mouse buttom down, shouldn't it know that I don't want to leave the scroll bar, but get to the end.?
MINOR problems such as this are what apple solves.(not to say that there is a patent that solves this...) the patent of bouncing the contents when you get to the bottom is a subtle reminder that you have reached the end... is it really needed? perhaps no, but it is better that it is there... hence it is patented
TL;DR. nothing here to see; move along now... ROLF
Mueller is full of it. EVERY idea ever patented would have been thought of eventually. Using Mueller's logic all patents should be considered invalid.
death and taxes. ... eventually it happens...
That's just reality, Motorola are trying to become the ultimate patent trolls, their "reasonable" demand from Microsoft over H.264 patents amounts to $4 billion a year, Microsoft currently pays MPEG-LA $6.5 million a year if it wasn't capped it would be $60 million a year to license all the other essential patents in the pool.
Motorola is a money grubbing extortionist.
You're referring to the cherry-picked standard that Florian Mueller used in the article on Microsoft (who happens to pay Mr. Mueller for his "expertise") and Moto. There's other standards he doesn't mention that ask for much more in the way of royalties. Some FRAND-contributors such as Qualcomm or Nokia and partners asking for more than Motorola does in certain essential standards. The only one Mr. Mueller ever uses for comparison is MPEG-LA. Odd in my view if he's trying to present an honest picture.
Fandroids: Apple just does this to make money!
In real world: All Android OEMs exempt two pays licensing/protection fees to MSFT 5-15 dollar per device. MSFT that have done zero innovation in multitouch gets money from Android, and the Fandroid thinks Apple is evil.
But todays Apple is not the same as Apple under Steve. Apple is starting to do the same mistakes that the did in 1985 when Steve left.
Dividend, stock buy back program, 5 month slip of iOS5, 2-3 month slip of SSD 2011 iMacs, no redesign of iPhone, iPad 3 with a subpar A5X SoC, iPad 3 with LTE that only works in America and many more examples.
Tim accepts non perfect products. Steve would never have done it. When TSMC would say "we can't deliver enough wafers for mars launch of iPad" Steve would have gone mad and screamed, maybe even bought TSMC to make it work. Steve would have postponed Ipad3 availability 1-2 month to get a more elegant iPad 3. (double performance, lower power SoC, LTE world wide, not thicker).
For Steve, Apple was not about making money, Apple was about making the best products in the world, that then would make Apple money.
Tim values short term monitory gains by releasing iPad 3 a couple of month to early. Tim wants this money so that Appel can blow 50 billion in dividend and share buy back.
This will change Apples patents. Apple did not make money on its patents. Steve had 2 ways. Either it was industry standard and Appel licensed out its patents for free (like H264). If it was non industry standard patents Steve would refuse to license them out. Steve wanted Google/MSFT to invent their own stuff, not loan ideas from Apple.
Tim will license out Apple patents to make money.
Its sad to see Apple repeat every single mistake that they did when Steve left last time.
History will repeat it self. Apple will have many good years ahead, but the peak of innovation and think different attitude is gone.
The 50 billion that Tim blew really annoys me. Apple could have built its own foundries or bought 1 of Intels 22nm factories. Now Apple is depending on Samsung stuff, the same company that steals ideas from Apple. Its fun how Samsung leaks Apple roadmap. They know exactly what Apple is doing since they deliver the SoC, screen, NAND flash and so on.
You have no idea what you're talking about. It's already been said that there is about 3-5 years worth of products on the roadmap that Steve Jobs was involved in.
You complain about the iPhone 4S's design (not a redesign), but you completely ignored the iPhone 3GS. Did you miss that one? It was the same design as the iPhone 3G. Want to guess how that went over with the consumers? IT SOLD MORE THAN THE IPHONE 3G, A LOT MORE! And, it's STILL IN PRODUCTION.
Considering there is well over a year in R&D for a new product, Steve was still around during the new iPad's development.
Just in case you missed it, Apple has been partners with Samsung for a LONG time... just like they were partners with Google, well before Android became what it is.
You really need to do some more research before you come here blabbering about stuff you obviously don't know anything about.
I could go on dissecting your other stupid comments, but it isn't worth my time or effort.
Ah, c'mon!
There must be something loveable about us.
I mean, you keep coming back, right?
✔
You have no idea what you're talking about. It's already been said that there is about 3-5 years worth of products on the roadmap that Steve Jobs was involved in.
You complain about the iPhone 4S's design (not a redesign), but you completely ignored the iPhone 3GS. Did you miss that one? It was the same design as the iPhone 3G. Want to guess how that went over with the consumers? IT SOLD MORE THAN THE IPHONE 3G, A LOT MORE! And, it's STILL IN PRODUCTION.
Considering there is well over a year in R&D for a new product, Steve was still around during the new iPad's development.
Just in case you missed it, Apple has been partners with Samsung for a LONG time... just like they were partners with Google, well before Android became what it is.
You really need to do some more research before you come here blabbering about stuff you obviously don't know anything about.
I could go on dissecting your other stupid comments, but it isn't worth my time or effort.
Every product he mentioned as being the downfall happened under Steve's watch.
The biggest non-change for the iPhone was between the original iPhone and iPhone 3G. They changed the casing and added 3G but most of the internals were the same. They even moved from a "sophisticated" metal to a "cheap" plastic... under Steve. To make matters worse iOS 2.0 had the most problems with Safari crashing often under version 2.1 or so.
You left this out of your post:
"Posted from my Android phone".
"Posted from anything but an Apple product" yet followed up with "I own everything Apple makes I just think it all sucks."
Patents or not, Android is here to stay.
That's a platitude. Of course they are.
The question is whether they have to pay to stay.
SpamSandwich will be in for a shock when you charge him a 1 hour consultation fee for that post.
Maybe he will cover it with some of that Apple stock.
Every product he mentioned as being the downfall happened under Steve's watch..
Exactly.
Even the iPad 3 was probably essentially complete under Jobs' watch. Any products released after the iPad 3 will still have Jobs' influence to a greater or lesser degree. For example, if they introduce a new MBP this month, the basic design and almost all of the details would have been done under Jobs. It's conceivable that Cook might have contributed a small tweak her or there. As time goes on, Cook's influence will be more visible. By 2020 or so, new products will be essentially completely done under Cook (although there would still be some influence from what he's learned from Jobs.
We're still at least a year away from a product that wasn't largely done under Jobs.