To be clear I've not said Apple, or Microsoft or Oracle or whoever is in the wrong with their IP suits. I'm just noting that Google doesn't sue competitors, at least so far. Why is that bothersome. Is there some requirement that they strike back every time someone challenges them? Personally I think it's refreshing and hope it's not too much longer before the mobile space settles back down and everyone makes IP suits a rarity rather than a rule..
[quote]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.[/quote]
True they have not directly sued anyone yet but, because of there letter to the European Union that after acquiring motorola they will continue to pursue motorola's illegal use of frand patents to get competitors to give in, they are in fact suing now. Because motorola is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Google. So in fact google is suing apple and microsoft. Not only that they have stated in letters to the EU and the DOJ that they agree with Motorola's extortionist behavior, now that they own Motorola, they will continue down the same path.
Stop making asinine comments! It's amazing that you'd accuse Apple of copying Rams's designs simply because they used his 10 principles for good design.
• Good design is innovative.
• Good design makes a product useful.
• Good design is aesthetic.
• Good design helps us to understand a product.
• Good design is unobtrusive.
• Good design is honest.
• Good design is durable.
• Good design is consequent to the last detail.
• Good design is concerned with the environment.
• Good design is as little design as possible.
The images you might try to counter with are taken of two dissimilar products but with certain lighting, angles, sizes and other visual variables so that they have basic similar look despite being nothing alike. This is pareidolia which is why crazy people put meaning into a cloud that looks like a dog or their toast looks like Jesus.
Nothing is ever truly original. Inspiration comes in my ways. Palm OS versus Apple iOS. Interesting.
Yes, but there's a difference between inspiration and slavish copying.
For example. Look at the Galaxy SIII. It's appearance may have been inspired by the iPhone, but it is not a slavish copy. OTOH, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is clearly a close copy of the original iPad.
"GALAXY S III became smarter. It reads you and understand what you need. Smart Stay, Smart Alert, Direct Call, Double tap to top, S Voice will make you more convinient. What is your most wanted?"
Clearly and ironically, Samsung has not copied Apple's copywriting.
It's tough for Google to sue when their competitors respect their IP.
Doubtful. Companies with much fewer than even the 700 or so that Google had two years ago have found them infringed.
Personally I don't believe it was in Google's DNA to sue for market advantage, and the lack of even one suit against a competitor would support that view. They weern't even aggressive at applying for patents on things they did create until quite recently. Do a patent search (the service Google Patents will work) to see the uptick in the number of Google patent filings in the past two years. I think they finally got the fact that feeling innovation should be shared doesn't jive with the new mobile world.
Doubtful. Companies with much fewer than even the 700 or so that Google had two years ago have found them infringed.
Personally I don't believe it was in Google's DNA to sue for market advantage, and the lack of even one suit against a competitor would support that view. They weern't even aggressive at applying for patents on things they did create until quite recently. Do a patent search (the service Google Patents will work) to see the uptick in the number of Google patent filings in the past two years. I think they finally got the fact that feeling innovation should be shared doesn't jive with the new mobile world.
I think you're grossly misrepresenting the motives.
Google has a long history of pretending that intellectual property doesn't exist. Look at their Google Books program, for example. Since they are the takers and not the innovators or creators, it is to their advantage for IP to cease to exist. Therefore, suing (and therefore validating IP) would work against their goals.
Their patents in the past 2 years appear to be defensive - using them as threats to prevent other companies from suing them for their blatant intellectual property theft. Their purchase of Motorola seems to affirm that.
Yes, but there's a difference between inspiration and slavish copying.
For example. Look at the Galaxy SIII. It's appearance may have been inspired by the iPhone, but it is not a slavish copy. OTOH, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is clearly a close copy of the original iPad.
Please make an effort to learn the difference.
Please explain to me how you could design a tablet that didn't look like the iPad. The tablet computer has a natural form. It would be like trying to design a laptop that doesn't look like a laptop.
So what if they look the same? One has Apple written on it and other has Samsung written on it. You would have to be an idiot to get them confused.
Please explain to me how you could design a tablet that didn't look like the iPad. The tablet computer has a natural form. It would be like trying to design a laptop that doesn't look like a laptop.
So what if they look the same? One has Apple written on it and other has Samsung written on it. You would have to be an idiot to get them confused.
I think you're grossly misrepresenting the motives.
Google has a long history of pretending that intellectual property doesn't exist. Look at their Google Books program, for example. Since they are the takers and not the innovators or creators, it is to their advantage for IP to cease to exist. Therefore, suing (and therefore validating IP) would work against their goals.
Their patents in the past 2 years appear to be defensive - using them as threats to prevent other companies from suing them for their blatant intellectual property theft. Their purchase of Motorola seems to affirm that.
I'll be the first to say you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
Google also has a long history of treating many of their innovations as the property of the open-source community. Of course they can't give everything away or they couldn't continue in business, and someday they're going to have to sue some competitor who threatens their existence.
Note tho that few large tech companies have been willing to contribute so much IP completely free of charge the past several years. As a matter of fact I don't think Google has received royalties on any of their contributed IP (MM of course changes that). Their actions are evidence that they view most technical improvements as benefiting from others building on what they've created rather than locking it up.
The Supreme Court has continually acknowledged the importance of maintaining high patent quality, saying just a few years ago that, "the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws [because w]ere it otherwise patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts."
Unfortunately, the American patent system today is suffering from extremely low patent quality. Every Tuesday the Patent Office issues 4,500 patents after spending, on average, less than a couple of days in reviewing the merits of each patent application. When asked to reconsider the merits of patents it previously issued, the Patent Office concedes that the vast majority of them have questionable validity. When patents end up in court as a result of patent owners suing alleged infringers, a large percentage of the time those asserted patents are found to have been improperly granted. The result is a polluted patent system littered with trash patents that impede technological development."
You can find the video included with the article where patent issues are discussed here:
Please explain to me how you could design a tablet that didn't look like the iPad. The tablet computer has a natural form. It would be like trying to design a laptop that doesn't look like a laptop.
So what if they look the same? One has Apple written on it and other has Samsung written on it. You would have to be an idiot to get them confused.
Apparently, Samsung hires idiots for lawyers, then.
But you are clearly wrong. It's not about the 'natural form' of a tablet. It's about Samsung just using the natural form, but making a near-exact copy - down to the packaging and the charger. Once again, you need to learn the difference between 'inspiration' and 'near-exact copy'.
I'll be the first to say you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
Google also has a long history of treating many of their innovations as the property of the open-source community. Of course they can't give everything away or they couldn't continue in business, and someday they're going to have to sue some competitor who threatens their existence.
Note tho that few large tech companies have been willing to contribute so much IP completely free of charge the past several years. As a matter of fact I don't think Google has received royalties on any of their contributed IP (MM of course changes that). Their actions are evidence that they view most technical improvements as benefiting from others building on what they've created rather than locking it up.
Which only reinforces what I said. Google has taken the position that IP should have no value - as part of their long history of stealing people's IP.
<p style="list-style-type:none;margin-bottom:14px;border-top-style:none;border-right-style:none;border-bottom-style:none;border-left-style:none;font-family:Georgia, Century, Times, serif;line-height:20px;">[SIZE=14px]The Supreme Court has continually acknowledged the importance of maintaining high patent quality, saying just a few years ago that,[/SIZE]</p>
Cool. Thanks for pointing out that the Supreme Court disagrees with Posner's position that patent exclusivity shouldn't be enforceable. The Constitution provides for exclusivity. Patent laws provide for exclusivity. And now you're admitting that the Supreme Court also believes in strong patents.
Please explain to me how you could design a tablet that didn't look like the iPad. The tablet computer has a natural form. It would be like trying to design a laptop that doesn't look like a laptop.
So what if they look the same? One has Apple written on it and other has Samsung written on it. You would have to be an idiot to get them confused.
There are plenty of ways. Samsung put enough tweaks in the Galaxy Tab 10.1N to lift an injunction in Germany.
Cool. Thanks for pointing out that the Supreme Court disagrees with Posner's position that patent exclusivity shouldn't be enforceable. The Constitution provides for exclusivity. Patent laws provide for exclusivity. And now you're admitting that the Supreme Court also believes in strong patents.
I can't wait to see Posner's position overturned.
They don't say they disagree. Read this line carefully and absorb what it says:
"The Congress shall have the power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
What is that saying? I gave you a hint.
EDIT: That quote is from the Constitution in case you don't recognize it.
Comments
Quote:
Quote: Originally Posted by MeniThings
That's my point, to a greater or lesser extent most products are copies of something else. Nothing is truly original.
If you're going to get personal then maybe I should mention how Apple has copied the designs of DIETER RAMS over many years.
Rip off or inspiration?
I can't be bothered to copy the pics across so you can look at the similarities for yourself at http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-apples-future
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Who was Google going to sue?
Apparently no one, right?
To be clear I've not said Apple, or Microsoft or Oracle or whoever is in the wrong with their IP suits. I'm just noting that Google doesn't sue competitors, at least so far. Why is that bothersome. Is there some requirement that they strike back every time someone challenges them? Personally I think it's refreshing and hope it's not too much longer before the mobile space settles back down and everyone makes IP suits a rarity rather than a rule..
True they have not directly sued anyone yet but, because of there letter to the European Union that after acquiring motorola they will continue to pursue motorola's illegal use of frand patents to get competitors to give in, they are in fact suing now. Because motorola is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Google. So in fact google is suing apple and microsoft. Not only that they have stated in letters to the EU and the DOJ that they agree with Motorola's extortionist behavior, now that they own Motorola, they will continue down the same path.
Stop making asinine comments! It's amazing that you'd accuse Apple of copying Rams's designs simply because they used his 10 principles for good design.
• Good design makes a product useful.
• Good design is aesthetic.
• Good design helps us to understand a product.
• Good design is unobtrusive.
• Good design is honest.
• Good design is durable.
• Good design is consequent to the last detail.
• Good design is concerned with the environment.
• Good design is as little design as possible.
The images you might try to counter with are taken of two dissimilar products but with certain lighting, angles, sizes and other visual variables so that they have basic similar look despite being nothing alike. This is pareidolia which is why crazy people put meaning into a cloud that looks like a dog or their toast looks like Jesus.
Yes, but there's a difference between inspiration and slavish copying.
For example. Look at the Galaxy SIII. It's appearance may have been inspired by the iPhone, but it is not a slavish copy. OTOH, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is clearly a close copy of the original iPad.
Please make an effort to learn the difference.
They don't need to. They simply copy or steal from everyone else and wait until the other people sue them.
The real reason Judge Koh approved an injunction against Samsung? For the company's crime against the English language.
This is from their website (http://global.samsungtomorrow.com/?p=16045):
"GALAXY S III became smarter. It reads you and understand what you need. Smart Stay, Smart Alert, Direct Call, Double tap to top, S Voice will make you more convinient. What is your most wanted?"
Clearly and ironically, Samsung has not copied Apple's copywriting.
It's tough for Google to sue when their competitors respect their IP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63
It's tough for Google to sue when their competitors respect their IP.
Doubtful. Companies with much fewer than even the 700 or so that Google had two years ago have found them infringed.
Personally I don't believe it was in Google's DNA to sue for market advantage, and the lack of even one suit against a competitor would support that view. They weern't even aggressive at applying for patents on things they did create until quite recently. Do a patent search (the service Google Patents will work) to see the uptick in the number of Google patent filings in the past two years. I think they finally got the fact that feeling innovation should be shared doesn't jive with the new mobile world.
I think you're grossly misrepresenting the motives.
Google has a long history of pretending that intellectual property doesn't exist. Look at their Google Books program, for example. Since they are the takers and not the innovators or creators, it is to their advantage for IP to cease to exist. Therefore, suing (and therefore validating IP) would work against their goals.
Their patents in the past 2 years appear to be defensive - using them as threats to prevent other companies from suing them for their blatant intellectual property theft. Their purchase of Motorola seems to affirm that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Yes, but there's a difference between inspiration and slavish copying.
For example. Look at the Galaxy SIII. It's appearance may have been inspired by the iPhone, but it is not a slavish copy. OTOH, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is clearly a close copy of the original iPad.
Please make an effort to learn the difference.
Please explain to me how you could design a tablet that didn't look like the iPad. The tablet computer has a natural form. It would be like trying to design a laptop that doesn't look like a laptop.
So what if they look the same? One has Apple written on it and other has Samsung written on it. You would have to be an idiot to get them confused.
You're now arguing his point.
You're not really innovation material…
Even Microsoft managed to do that.
You say this all the time, and every time we tell you that Samsung's own lawyers must be idiots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I think you're grossly misrepresenting the motives.
Google has a long history of pretending that intellectual property doesn't exist. Look at their Google Books program, for example. Since they are the takers and not the innovators or creators, it is to their advantage for IP to cease to exist. Therefore, suing (and therefore validating IP) would work against their goals.
Their patents in the past 2 years appear to be defensive - using them as threats to prevent other companies from suing them for their blatant intellectual property theft. Their purchase of Motorola seems to affirm that.
I'll be the first to say you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
Google also has a long history of treating many of their innovations as the property of the open-source community. Of course they can't give everything away or they couldn't continue in business, and someday they're going to have to sue some competitor who threatens their existence.
Note tho that few large tech companies have been willing to contribute so much IP completely free of charge the past several years. As a matter of fact I don't think Google has received royalties on any of their contributed IP (MM of course changes that). Their actions are evidence that they view most technical improvements as benefiting from others building on what they've created rather than locking it up.
Here's a viewpoint that might deserve discussion:
The Supreme Court has continually acknowledged the importance of maintaining high patent quality, saying just a few years ago that, "the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws [because w]ere it otherwise patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts."
Unfortunately, the American patent system today is suffering from extremely low patent quality. Every Tuesday the Patent Office issues 4,500 patents after spending, on average, less than a couple of days in reviewing the merits of each patent application. When asked to reconsider the merits of patents it previously issued, the Patent Office concedes that the vast majority of them have questionable validity. When patents end up in court as a result of patent owners suing alleged infringers, a large percentage of the time those asserted patents are found to have been improperly granted. The result is a polluted patent system littered with trash patents that impede technological development."
You can find the video included with the article where patent issues are discussed here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-b-ravicher/the-patent-pollution-problem_b_1465478.html
Apparently, Samsung hires idiots for lawyers, then.
But you are clearly wrong. It's not about the 'natural form' of a tablet. It's about Samsung just using the natural form, but making a near-exact copy - down to the packaging and the charger. Once again, you need to learn the difference between 'inspiration' and 'near-exact copy'.
Which only reinforces what I said. Google has taken the position that IP should have no value - as part of their long history of stealing people's IP.
Cool. Thanks for pointing out that the Supreme Court disagrees with Posner's position that patent exclusivity shouldn't be enforceable. The Constitution provides for exclusivity. Patent laws provide for exclusivity. And now you're admitting that the Supreme Court also believes in strong patents.
I can't wait to see Posner's position overturned.
There are plenty of ways. Samsung put enough tweaks in the Galaxy Tab 10.1N to lift an injunction in Germany.
Soli I stole your pic, so sue me lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Cool. Thanks for pointing out that the Supreme Court disagrees with Posner's position that patent exclusivity shouldn't be enforceable. The Constitution provides for exclusivity. Patent laws provide for exclusivity. And now you're admitting that the Supreme Court also believes in strong patents.
I can't wait to see Posner's position overturned.
They don't say they disagree. Read this line carefully and absorb what it says:
"The Congress shall have the power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
What is that saying? I gave you a hint.
EDIT: That quote is from the Constitution in case you don't recognize it.
No, they didn't. You can't look at that and tell me that's anything but "subjectively different enough", not actually different.
It worked. Did it not?