It's not as common with hardware patents, but it happens. They really simply need to hire some software engineers as patent examiners.
Example?
FWIW, the patent system itself is set up to assume a patent application is valid. The examiner is required to submit a written statement explaining a denial and the detailed specific reasons for it. The approval just needs a stamp AFAIK, no statements why needed. If you've got a pile of 'em on your desk and pressure to clear the backlog, which they do, those difficult to understand software patents with dozens of claims are pretty likely to get the stamp of approval barring anything plainly obvious. Would you agree?
[quote]On Saturday, Judge Koh denied the entirety of a comprehensive summary judgment motion that Samsung brought in May. Samsung attacked the validity of each and every one of the intellectual property rights asserted by Apple at this stage as well as Apple's FRAND-related antitrust claims, and failed all the way. It is very unusual for such a multi-pronged motion by a major industry player to fail entirely. [/quote]
Then, later: [quote]This presumably concludes a dreadful week for Samsung in the Northern District of California, which previously involved a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, a far more important preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Nexus, the dismissal of one of Samsung's patent infringement claims further to Apple's summary judgment motion, and a clear Apple victory over expert reports.[/quote]
I just can't wait to hear Gatorguy and Jerrytroll tell us how this is a great victory and how Samsung will win in the end.
Soli, I never said that Google had no influence with Moto. That would be just as silly as claiming that Apple had no influence at Disney. What I said it was just was guessing to claim that Google had control over Moto's legal cases. Where's the conflict?
All influence is control. Control does not necessarily — and usually doesn't — mean it's absolute and unmitigated. Again, the words you stated previously are technically correct, but they are not the complete truth, hence the MM lawsuit from January still falls under the Google umbrella even if Google technically, on paper, hadn't actually merged with MM at that point.
All influence is control. Control does not necessarily — and usually doesn't — mean it's absolute and unmitigated. Again, the words you stated previously are technically correct, but they are not the complete truth, hence the MM lawsuit from January still falls under the Google umbrella even if Google technically, on paper, hadn't actually merged with MM at that point.
I disagree Soli. You would then argue that Disney's actions were controlled by Apple? Or that the actions of some company that Apple (or MS or Nokia) gives IP to were controlled by Apple when that IP is used for infringement claims.
Regardless of what Samsung loses in court I still think that Samsung, from a purely business standpoint, made the best moves of all the Android-based vendors as I highly doubt that any penalties they will face will be so bad as to account for all the revenue, profit, and Android-based mindshare they've had. I also think they've used their thievery to actually learn how to make a better product at a lower cost which is something that other Android-based vendors still can't seem to match. From a business perspective the ends look to be justifying the means.
You would then argue that Disney's actions could be blamed on Apple? Or that the actions of some company that Apple (or MS or Nokia) gives IP to could be blamed on Apple when that IP is used for infringement claims.
Define blame. A simply assigning of responsibility outside a court of law? Sure, I think Jobs as a Disney board member and largest shareholder, and CEO of Apple fought to get Disney-owned content on the ITS to help grow the store and influence other content owners to follow suit. Can I prove it? Absolutely not but you and I both know it's damn well true.
PS: These forums discussions are all about control. I am trying to use my words to influence you to my PoV just as you are doing the same to me. There is nothing malevolent about it. This is how communication works. I often disagree with your points just as you mine but you do create intelligent and well thoughtout counter-arguments which forces me to use more thorough arguments (oft requiring research) to counter your arguments. You influence me. I influence you. I'd be lying if I said this forum and it's members (most of them) has not taught me to be a better debater. It's still my choice to engage but the words of others on here have controlled nearly all my responses. It's a good thing!
Define blame. A simply assigning of responsibility outside a court of law? Sure, I think Jobs as a Disney board member and largest shareholder, and CEO of Apple fought to get Disney-owned content on the ITS to help grow the store and influence other content owners to follow suit. Can I prove it? Absolutely not but you and I both know it's damn well true.
Sorry Soli, I had edited before your reply. I recognized that "blame" would just throw another unneeded definition into the conversation.
It's not as common with hardware patents, but it happens. They really simply need to hire some software engineers as patent examiners.
Did you know that it's claimed nearly 50% of litigated patents are eventually found invalid? You've actually made a good suggestion and something along those lines is already underway.
Regardless of what Samsung loses in court I still think that Samsung, from a purely business standpoint, made the best moves of all the Android-based vendors as I highly doubt that any penalties they will face will be so bad as to account for all the revenue, profit, and Android-based mindshare they've had. I also think they've used their thievery to actually learn how to make a better product at a lower cost which is something that other Android-based vendors still can't seem to match. From a business perspective the ends look to be justifying the means.
Unfortunately, you're probably right. Samsung's blatant copying of Apple's products has probably been worth billions of dollars to them - far more than any fine is likely to be. Especially when you get idiots like Posner saying that there's no harm to Apple when Samsung makes obvious copies of their products.
Unfortunately, you're probably right. Samsung's blatant copying of Apple's products has probably been worth billions of dollars to them - far more than any fine is likely to be. Especially when you get idiots like Posner saying that there's no harm to Apple when Samsung makes obvious copies of their products.
I'd venture that all to nearly all of Samsung's mobile revenue in the last five years is either directly or indirectly thanks to their aping of Apple's stuff.
PS: These forums discussions are all about control. I am trying to use my words to influence you to my PoV just as you are doing the same to me. There is nothing malevolent about it. This is how communication works. I often disagree with your points just as you mine but you do create intelligent and well thoughtout counter-arguments which forces me to use more thorough arguments (oft requiring research) to counter your arguments. You influence me. I influence you. I'd be lying if I said this forum and it's members (most of them) has not taught me to be a better debater. It's still my choice to engage but the words of others on here have controlled nearly all my responses. It's a good thing!
Ditto. Because of many different forum members, you and Mel especially, I've learned to be extra cautious and use due-diligence with anything I claim to be more than my opinion. Thanks for the debates! I'm sure there will be many more, eventually bringing you over to my way of thinking
PS: You have to admit some surprise at finding no evidence that Google has ever sued a competitor in it's 15 years of existence. More than one forum member went scurrying to prove me wrong, which is great. Spending some time with independent research rather than blind acceptance of what they've heard isn't a bad thing to do.
Nothing is ever truly original. Inspiration comes in my ways. Palm OS versus Apple iOS. Interesting.
Why choose Palm OS when, in regards to handhelds, Newton predates it?
But even before Newton there were decades of digitally represented icons in a grid format on Mac OS and the simple GUIs before that. Even before computers we still had items icons placed in a grid formation. Soda machines come to mind. Usually a single column but the premise is the same. I'm sure there are others people can think of. The games Go and Chess use a grid layout.
What I don't get is why icons in a grid the lack of innovation you point out and not how the code in implemented or any of the other changes to the architecture, apps, and multitude of other innovations that have made Apple's iOS devices such a huge success.
Google hasn't yet sued anyone despite a large number of patents in its portfolio both home-grown and acquired, including one filed for the notification bar back in 2009. They controlled thousands of them even before the MM purchase. Google has a completely different attitude towards initiating litigation against it's tech neighbors than any of it's competitors.
Who was Google going to sue? It doesn't own the algorithms it uses for search, those are licensed from Stanford. In 2011, Google owned less than 600 patents, compared to over 2000 owned by Apple. Apple also owns more through patent consortiums.
More importantly, Google's business model is completely different than Apple's. Apple makes money by selling hardware. Accordingly, it wants to offer appealing hardware that others do not offer. So when it designs something, it doesn't want others to copy. Google makes money by obtaining information from people that it can sell to advertisers. It pulls people in by giving them free software services that it then uses to get the people's information.
So, Apple instigates litigation when people copy its product because design is Apple's business model.
Regardless of what Samsung loses in court I still think that Samsung, from a purely business standpoint, made the best moves of all the Android-based vendors as I highly doubt that any penalties they will face will be so bad as to account for all the revenue, profit, and Android-based mindshare they've had. I also think they've used their thievery to actually learn how to make a better product at a lower cost which is something that other Android-based vendors still can't seem to match. From a business perspective the ends look to be justifying the means.
Perhaps that is the case now, but if its products get banned from the Country, that gain will quickly be lost.
[quote] 1. Apple competitors are infringing on Apple patents which further suggests that Apple is the only company innovating.[/quote]
Tim Cook on the Patent Wars: [quote]Well, it is a pain in the ass[/quote]
and on others copying apple says it all:
[quote]From our point of view, it is important for Apple to not be the developer for the world, We just want other people to invent their own stuff.[/quote]
He posed the question just before that: [quote]it would be terrible as an engineer to put all of your energies into creating a beautiful painting or product just to have someone else sign there name to it.[/quote]
He also said that if at all possible he is willing to settle these court cases but competitors would have to quit copying in order for that to happen.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Sure. I've seen it in my own job in the past.
It's not as common with hardware patents, but it happens. They really simply need to hire some software engineers as patent examiners.
Example?
FWIW, the patent system itself is set up to assume a patent application is valid. The examiner is required to submit a written statement explaining a denial and the detailed specific reasons for it. The approval just needs a stamp AFAIK, no statements why needed. If you've got a pile of 'em on your desk and pressure to clear the backlog, which they do, those difficult to understand software patents with dozens of claims are pretty likely to get the stamp of approval barring anything plainly obvious. Would you agree?
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/judge-koh-deals-next-blow-to-samsung.html
[quote]On Saturday, Judge Koh denied the entirety of a comprehensive summary judgment motion that Samsung brought in May. Samsung attacked the validity of each and every one of the intellectual property rights asserted by Apple at this stage as well as Apple's FRAND-related antitrust claims, and failed all the way. It is very unusual for such a multi-pronged motion by a major industry player to fail entirely. [/quote]
Then, later:
[quote]This presumably concludes a dreadful week for Samsung in the Northern District of California, which previously involved a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, a far more important preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Nexus, the dismissal of one of Samsung's patent infringement claims further to Apple's summary judgment motion, and a clear Apple victory over expert reports.[/quote]
I just can't wait to hear Gatorguy and Jerrytroll tell us how this is a great victory and how Samsung will win in the end.
All influence is control. Control does not necessarily — and usually doesn't — mean it's absolute and unmitigated. Again, the words you stated previously are technically correct, but they are not the complete truth, hence the MM lawsuit from January still falls under the Google umbrella even if Google technically, on paper, hadn't actually merged with MM at that point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
All influence is control. Control does not necessarily — and usually doesn't — mean it's absolute and unmitigated. Again, the words you stated previously are technically correct, but they are not the complete truth, hence the MM lawsuit from January still falls under the Google umbrella even if Google technically, on paper, hadn't actually merged with MM at that point.
I disagree Soli. You would then argue that Disney's actions were controlled by Apple? Or that the actions of some company that Apple (or MS or Nokia) gives IP to were controlled by Apple when that IP is used for infringement claims.
Regardless of what Samsung loses in court I still think that Samsung, from a purely business standpoint, made the best moves of all the Android-based vendors as I highly doubt that any penalties they will face will be so bad as to account for all the revenue, profit, and Android-based mindshare they've had. I also think they've used their thievery to actually learn how to make a better product at a lower cost which is something that other Android-based vendors still can't seem to match. From a business perspective the ends look to be justifying the means.
Define blame. A simply assigning of responsibility outside a court of law? Sure, I think Jobs as a Disney board member and largest shareholder, and CEO of Apple fought to get Disney-owned content on the ITS to help grow the store and influence other content owners to follow suit. Can I prove it? Absolutely not but you and I both know it's damn well true.
PS: These forums discussions are all about control. I am trying to use my words to influence you to my PoV just as you are doing the same to me. There is nothing malevolent about it. This is how communication works. I often disagree with your points just as you mine but you do create intelligent and well thoughtout counter-arguments which forces me to use more thorough arguments (oft requiring research) to counter your arguments. You influence me. I influence you. I'd be lying if I said this forum and it's members (most of them) has not taught me to be a better debater. It's still my choice to engage but the words of others on here have controlled nearly all my responses. It's a good thing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I just can't wait to hear Gatorguy and Jerrytroll tell us how this is a great victory and how Samsung will win in the end.
I've never made those claims before this so why would I do so now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Define blame. A simply assigning of responsibility outside a court of law? Sure, I think Jobs as a Disney board member and largest shareholder, and CEO of Apple fought to get Disney-owned content on the ITS to help grow the store and influence other content owners to follow suit. Can I prove it? Absolutely not but you and I both know it's damn well true.
Sorry Soli, I had edited before your reply. I recognized that "blame" would just throw another unneeded definition into the conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Sure. I've seen it in my own job in the past.
It's not as common with hardware patents, but it happens. They really simply need to hire some software engineers as patent examiners.
Did you know that it's claimed nearly 50% of litigated patents are eventually found invalid? You've actually made a good suggestion and something along those lines is already underway.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10359839-52.html
Unfortunately, you're probably right. Samsung's blatant copying of Apple's products has probably been worth billions of dollars to them - far more than any fine is likely to be. Especially when you get idiots like Posner saying that there's no harm to Apple when Samsung makes obvious copies of their products.
I'd venture that all to nearly all of Samsung's mobile revenue in the last five years is either directly or indirectly thanks to their aping of Apple's stuff.
Nothing is ever truly original. Inspiration comes in my ways. Palm OS versus Apple iOS. Interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
PS: These forums discussions are all about control. I am trying to use my words to influence you to my PoV just as you are doing the same to me. There is nothing malevolent about it. This is how communication works. I often disagree with your points just as you mine but you do create intelligent and well thoughtout counter-arguments which forces me to use more thorough arguments (oft requiring research) to counter your arguments. You influence me. I influence you. I'd be lying if I said this forum and it's members (most of them) has not taught me to be a better debater. It's still my choice to engage but the words of others on here have controlled nearly all my responses. It's a good thing!
Ditto. Because of many different forum members, you and Mel especially, I've learned to be extra cautious and use due-diligence with anything I claim to be more than my opinion. Thanks for the debates! I'm sure there will be many more, eventually bringing you over to my way of thinking
PS: You have to admit some surprise at finding no evidence that Google has ever sued a competitor in it's 15 years of existence. More than one forum member went scurrying to prove me wrong, which is great. Spending some time with independent research rather than blind acceptance of what they've heard isn't a bad thing to do.
The palm OS is a ripoff of Apple's Newton OS. Do your research.
Why choose Palm OS when, in regards to handhelds, Newton predates it?
But even before Newton there were decades of digitally represented icons in a grid format on Mac OS and the simple GUIs before that. Even before computers we still had items icons placed in a grid formation. Soda machines come to mind. Usually a single column but the premise is the same. I'm sure there are others people can think of. The games Go and Chess use a grid layout.
What I don't get is why icons in a grid the lack of innovation you point out and not how the code in implemented or any of the other changes to the architecture, apps, and multitude of other innovations that have made Apple's iOS devices such a huge success.
PS: "Simpsons did it!"
As has been said, Newton did it long before them.
Interesting.
Actually the lawyers for both moto google and samsung are some of the finest patent lawyers in the nation, from the law firm Quinn Emanuel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Google hasn't yet sued anyone despite a large number of patents in its portfolio both home-grown and acquired, including one filed for the notification bar back in 2009. They controlled thousands of them even before the MM purchase. Google has a completely different attitude towards initiating litigation against it's tech neighbors than any of it's competitors.
Who was Google going to sue? It doesn't own the algorithms it uses for search, those are licensed from Stanford. In 2011, Google owned less than 600 patents, compared to over 2000 owned by Apple. Apple also owns more through patent consortiums.
More importantly, Google's business model is completely different than Apple's. Apple makes money by selling hardware. Accordingly, it wants to offer appealing hardware that others do not offer. So when it designs something, it doesn't want others to copy. Google makes money by obtaining information from people that it can sell to advertisers. It pulls people in by giving them free software services that it then uses to get the people's information.
So, Apple instigates litigation when people copy its product because design is Apple's business model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Regardless of what Samsung loses in court I still think that Samsung, from a purely business standpoint, made the best moves of all the Android-based vendors as I highly doubt that any penalties they will face will be so bad as to account for all the revenue, profit, and Android-based mindshare they've had. I also think they've used their thievery to actually learn how to make a better product at a lower cost which is something that other Android-based vendors still can't seem to match. From a business perspective the ends look to be justifying the means.
Perhaps that is the case now, but if its products get banned from the Country, that gain will quickly be lost.
1. Apple competitors are infringing on Apple patents which further suggests that Apple is the only company innovating.[/quote]
Tim Cook on the Patent Wars: [quote]Well, it is a pain in the ass[/quote]
and on others copying apple says it all:
[quote]From our point of view, it is important for Apple to not be the developer for the world, We just want other people to invent their own stuff.[/quote]
He posed the question just before that: [quote]it would be terrible as an engineer to put all of your energies into creating a beautiful painting or product just to have someone else sign there name to it.[/quote]
He also said that if at all possible he is willing to settle these court cases but competitors would have to quit copying in order for that to happen.