So your legal opinion is that the patent should not have been issued, as the description is too vague to tell one "knowledgeable in the art" (viz. , Google engineers) enough to enable them to build it.
The fact that Google was able to copy it suggests pretty strongly that the above argument would fail.
So Apple spends tons of money, wins, Google spends 2 days, patches, Apple gains nothing. That's funny. To the average user, this will have zero impact, for the tech user I will just load whatever I want on my rooted phone and Apple can suck it.
I am sorry that I dont have the time to follow these things closely, but isnt is obvious goggle is stealing from Apple? I watched this video posted and if this is the latest goggle phone then boy what a joke. Also did anyone notice that pre-written messages to send when you cant take a call (around 1:20), well Apple showed that with ios6, so clearly stolen by gogle. I guess it doesnt matter now that this phone is banned.
How did Google copy a patent that did not yet exist?
I see GG is in rare form, insisting on the date the patent was issued, rather than filed for, and spinning the idea that one has to "copy the patent" to infringe it.
Anyone who thinks Android, and pretty much anything Google does, isn't an intentional copy of something else is only fooling themselves. Google is not an innovation company, they are a company that steals the ideas of others and gives them away. Must be kind of sad to be an engineer there, knowing you are just ripping off other engineers who did the heavy lifting for you.
That's one thing I hate about Google.
They are all for openness and transparity. But by that they mean stealing everyone else's ideas conveniently ignoring that other people spent time and money to come up with those.
And to add insult to injury Google just blatantly assumes they can get away with it. 'Let the people decide which OS is better'. What a mockery! Will 'the people' reimburse those whose ideas were stolen? Who pays for all the reaseach, testing and inventor's salaries?
Thinking all they need is a software patch to get away with it...
What an arrogant company.
They wouldn't be getting away with it. They haven't been found guilty of infringing the patent yet but in order to lift the injunction until the patents case is settled they would have find a temporary work around.
I am sorry that I dont have the time to follow these things closely, but isnt is obvious goggle is stealing from Apple? I watched this video posted and if this is the latest goggle phone then boy what a joke. Also did anyone notice that pre-written messages to send when you cant take a call (around 1:20), well Apple showed that with ios6, so clearly stolen by gogle. I guess it doesnt matter now that this phone is banned.
Dude that video is about 8-9 months old, way before Apple previewed iOS 6.
I assume this work around isn't as good as the IP they are using from Apple or they'd have used it in the first place. I wonder how it will effect performance and usability once implemented.
How did it go when HTC implemented a work around for their previous ban?
It went well for HTC. Are you suggesting otherwise?
It went well for HTC. Are you suggesting otherwise?
Temporarily, perhaps. Apple has asked ITC to consider whether HTC really stopped using the infringing technology or simply changed the appearance and then lied. No one yet knows how it turned out, so it's impossible to say whether it turned out well or not.
If HTC wins this review, then you could say that it turned out well (although they probably lost some sales during the interim). OTOH, if Apple wins, HTC is in a world of hurt. Lying to the ITC is not a good idea.
So Apple spends tons of money, wins, Google spends 2 days, patches, Apple gains nothing. That's funny. To the average user, this will have zero impact, for the tech user I will just load whatever I want on my rooted phone and Apple can suck it.
1. It is not yet clear that Google can work around it.
2. Even if Google can work around it, it is not clear that it's only 2 days of work.
3. Meanwhile, Samsung loses sales.
4. Meanwhile, the world begins to recognize that Google and Samsung are simple copycats.
5. The workaround will probably not be as good as the original. Otherwise, why wouldn't Google have used the workaround from the start?
6. Perhaps most importantly, it's a warning shot. You don't expect your warning shot to kill, but you expect the opponent to take notice and stop doing whatever they're doing. Look at the new Galaxy SIII. Compare it to the iPhone 4S. It appears that Samsung may have gotten the message and may move away from the slavish copying that they're known for. If that happens, then Apple won the war, regardless of the outcome of any individual skirmish.
How did Google copy a patent that did not yet exist?
GoogleGuy to the rescue.
Your lack of understanding of the patent system is obvious. The patent is available to the public after filing - which is LONG before the patent is awarded.
As in Apple assumes they can get away with stealing.
And then we have the many features Apple 'stole' for iOS6 from Android like email 'priority inbox' or as Apple calls it 'VIP mail', or the "call you later" text response to incoming calls or Face detection api or custom vibrations or multiple keyboard layouts or in-app bluetooth, etc... But, since it is Apple stealing Android's ideas, it's okay, right?
Don't be hypocritical.
I've got one word back to you: Cydia.
Notification Center on mobile has appear first on Cydia for iPhone.
Do I have to remind you the iPhone has come first and Google CEO have steal its UI from his position on Apple Board. Google Android 1.0 was going after the Blackberry UI.
Your lack of understanding of the patent system is obvious. The patent is available to the public after filing - which is LONG before the patent is awarded.
Uh, no. Just because an applicant has filed for a patent doesn't mean that the application is valid. The Patent Office denies patent applications all the time. Even for patents that are granted, many are subsequently invalidated or restricted in scope.
Further, have you read the patent in question? It doesn't describe anything that's actually patentable. It's just a 10,000-foot level mess of hand-waving legalese. I'm simply dumbfounded that otherwise intelligent people are defending these low-quality patents. Our patent system has serious flaws, and no one wins when junk like this gets patented. Using software patents is playing with fire -- sooner or later, everyone gets burned.
Your lack of understanding of the patent system is obvious. The patent is available to the public after filing - which is LONG before the patent is awarded.
Oh, he knows all that. He's just being his usual disingenuous self.
The truth is the way the patents are given are causing all of these problems one example of how bad the patent system is. Apple is getting a patent not on the operation of the task but on the task itself. This is different then previous patents that where handed out.
For example: If I where to say I am patenting a method for controlling the flow of an entrance by placing a movable wall that can be opened and closed across the entrance
-While the previous discription is something that we can see being patented would render anyone who wanted to use a door in violation of it. How ever if I patented the operation of my door rather then the very task itself.
For example: A patent to control the flow of an entrance by placing a movable wall attached to hinges that can be moved inwards and outwards laterally away from the entrance.
-The difference is because I choose to patent the actual way I will be doing door. It allows others to avoid infringing it by making the sliding door or a revolving door. The way the unified search is written it does not say how the task will be completed it simply says it is going to be done. Previously google would have came up with their own method of delivering unified search that would not imfringe on the way apple does it. When people talk about how vague these patents are I believe this is what they mean. Correct me if I am wrong.
Your lack of understanding of the patent system is obvious. The patent is available to the public after filing - which is LONG before the patent is awarded.
Ever the school-yard taunter Jr.
Your lack of a good point is obvious. Present a reasoned argument why an individual or company should put any development of their own on hold until the patent office chooses to either approve or deny a patent, in whole or part, perhaps 6-10 years later or even more, so we have a real discussion. While you're at it what is your suggestion for a way for companies to keep track of the numerous claims included in each of the over 500,000 patents applied for in the US each year, much less the quarter of a million granted and the other 250,000+ applied for but denied?
You don't seem to reason things out sometimes, hoping no one pays attention I suppose. The fact that a patent was applied for is no reason for the tech world to come to a halt and wait to see if it will be in the 50% that get approved... assuming anyone even noted it was applied for in the first place.
Your lack of a good point is obvious. Present a reasoned argument why an individual or company should put any development of their own on hold until the patent office chooses to either approve or deny a patent, in whole or part, perhaps 6-10 years later or even more, so we have a real discussion. While you're at it what is your suggestion for a way for companies to keep track of the numerous claims included in each of the over 500,000 patents applied for in the US each year, much less the quarter of a million granted and the other 250,000+ applied for but denied?
You don't seem to reason things out sometimes, hoping no one pays attention I suppose. The fact that a patent was applied for is no reason for the tech world to come to a halt and wait to see if it will be in the 50% that get approved... assuming anyone even noted it was applied for in the first place.
As though Google actually develops this stuff independently. Google's MO, as we all know, is to reverse engineer and, when possible (think books) simply outright steal. The culture at Google is a culture of thieves and vultures, not honest, hard working creative engineers.
This is the difference between Apple and Google. Apple creates. Google copies and destroys.
That's one thing I hate about Google.
They are all for openness and transparity. But by that they mean stealing everyone else's ideas conveniently ignoring that other people spent time and money to come up with those.
And to add insult to injury Google just blatantly assumes they can get away with it. 'Let the people decide which OS is better'. What a mockery! Will 'the people' reimburse those whose ideas were stolen? Who pays for all the reaseach, testing and inventor's salaries?
Thinking all they need is a software patch to get away with it...
What an arrogant company.
You really should be in possession of all the facts before spouting such nonsense. Apple was granted some extremely vague and broad patents which have allowed them to get the nexus banned. Apple could go after pretty much any phone maker with those patents, but of course have targetted Google and Samsung because they're feeling the heat. It's just poor sport.
You should also have a look at android to see how many features in iOS 5 and 6 appeared in android months or even years ago. Sometimes a problem just has a single best solution, so multiple developers will use it.
You really should be in possession of all the facts before spouting such nonsense. Apple was granted some extremely vague and broad patents which have allowed them to get the nexus banned. Apple could go after pretty much any phone maker with those patents, but of course have targetted Google and Samsung because they're feeling the heat. It's just poor sport.
You should also have a look at android to see how many features in iOS 5 and 6 appeared in android months or even years ago. Sometimes a problem just has a single best solution, so multiple developers will use it.
Unless you come up with a different (read: actual) argument, I don't ever want to see this crap posted again.
That's not me-in-mod-mode talking, of course, so feel free to keep repeating yourself to the hollow, echoing walls.
Comments
The fact that Google was able to copy it suggests pretty strongly that the above argument would fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The fact that Google was able to copy it suggests pretty strongly that the above argument would fail.
How did Google copy a patent that did not yet exist?
So Apple spends tons of money, wins, Google spends 2 days, patches, Apple gains nothing. That's funny. To the average user, this will have zero impact, for the tech user I will just load whatever I want on my rooted phone and Apple can suck it.
I am sorry that I dont have the time to follow these things closely, but isnt is obvious goggle is stealing from Apple? I watched this video posted and if this is the latest goggle phone then boy what a joke. Also did anyone notice that pre-written messages to send when you cant take a call (around 1:20), well Apple showed that with ios6, so clearly stolen by gogle. I guess it doesnt matter now that this phone is banned.
I see GG is in rare form, insisting on the date the patent was issued, rather than filed for, and spinning the idea that one has to "copy the patent" to infringe it.
Anyone who thinks Android, and pretty much anything Google does, isn't an intentional copy of something else is only fooling themselves. Google is not an innovation company, they are a company that steals the ideas of others and gives them away. Must be kind of sad to be an engineer there, knowing you are just ripping off other engineers who did the heavy lifting for you.
Are you sure you meant iOS6? It's not yet officially available to general users.
They wouldn't be getting away with it. They haven't been found guilty of infringing the patent yet but in order to lift the injunction until the patents case is settled they would have find a temporary work around.
Dude that video is about 8-9 months old, way before Apple previewed iOS 6.
It went well for HTC. Are you suggesting otherwise?
Temporarily, perhaps. Apple has asked ITC to consider whether HTC really stopped using the infringing technology or simply changed the appearance and then lied. No one yet knows how it turned out, so it's impossible to say whether it turned out well or not.
If HTC wins this review, then you could say that it turned out well (although they probably lost some sales during the interim). OTOH, if Apple wins, HTC is in a world of hurt. Lying to the ITC is not a good idea.
1. It is not yet clear that Google can work around it.
2. Even if Google can work around it, it is not clear that it's only 2 days of work.
3. Meanwhile, Samsung loses sales.
4. Meanwhile, the world begins to recognize that Google and Samsung are simple copycats.
5. The workaround will probably not be as good as the original. Otherwise, why wouldn't Google have used the workaround from the start?
6. Perhaps most importantly, it's a warning shot. You don't expect your warning shot to kill, but you expect the opponent to take notice and stop doing whatever they're doing. Look at the new Galaxy SIII. Compare it to the iPhone 4S. It appears that Samsung may have gotten the message and may move away from the slavish copying that they're known for. If that happens, then Apple won the war, regardless of the outcome of any individual skirmish.
GoogleGuy to the rescue.
Your lack of understanding of the patent system is obvious. The patent is available to the public after filing - which is LONG before the patent is awarded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bighype
Screw Google... they're just evil bastards.
What? How is Google playing by the (patent) rules them being 'evil'?
You mean if they infringe on everyone else's patents they are 'good'?
Your sense of right and wrong are flipped, buddy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
Got two words for you: 'Notification Center'
As in Apple assumes they can get away with stealing.
And then we have the many features Apple 'stole' for iOS6 from Android like email 'priority inbox' or as Apple calls it 'VIP mail', or the "call you later" text response to incoming calls or Face detection api or custom vibrations or multiple keyboard layouts or in-app bluetooth, etc... But, since it is Apple stealing Android's ideas, it's okay, right?
Don't be hypocritical.
I've got one word back to you: Cydia.
Notification Center on mobile has appear first on Cydia for iPhone.
Do I have to remind you the iPhone has come first and Google CEO have steal its UI from his position on Apple Board. Google Android 1.0 was going after the Blackberry UI.
Uh, no. Just because an applicant has filed for a patent doesn't mean that the application is valid. The Patent Office denies patent applications all the time. Even for patents that are granted, many are subsequently invalidated or restricted in scope.
Further, have you read the patent in question? It doesn't describe anything that's actually patentable. It's just a 10,000-foot level mess of hand-waving legalese. I'm simply dumbfounded that otherwise intelligent people are defending these low-quality patents. Our patent system has serious flaws, and no one wins when junk like this gets patented. Using software patents is playing with fire -- sooner or later, everyone gets burned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
GoogleGuy to the rescue.
Your lack of understanding of the patent system is obvious. The patent is available to the public after filing - which is LONG before the patent is awarded.
Oh, he knows all that. He's just being his usual disingenuous self.
The truth is the way the patents are given are causing all of these problems one example of how bad the patent system is. Apple is getting a patent not on the operation of the task but on the task itself. This is different then previous patents that where handed out.
For example: If I where to say I am patenting a method for controlling the flow of an entrance by placing a movable wall that can be opened and closed across the entrance
-While the previous discription is something that we can see being patented would render anyone who wanted to use a door in violation of it. How ever if I patented the operation of my door rather then the very task itself.
For example: A patent to control the flow of an entrance by placing a movable wall attached to hinges that can be moved inwards and outwards laterally away from the entrance.
-The difference is because I choose to patent the actual way I will be doing door. It allows others to avoid infringing it by making the sliding door or a revolving door. The way the unified search is written it does not say how the task will be completed it simply says it is going to be done. Previously google would have came up with their own method of delivering unified search that would not imfringe on the way apple does it. When people talk about how vague these patents are I believe this is what they mean. Correct me if I am wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
GoogleGuy to the rescue.
Your lack of understanding of the patent system is obvious. The patent is available to the public after filing - which is LONG before the patent is awarded.
Ever the school-yard taunter Jr.
Your lack of a good point is obvious. Present a reasoned argument why an individual or company should put any development of their own on hold until the patent office chooses to either approve or deny a patent, in whole or part, perhaps 6-10 years later or even more, so we have a real discussion. While you're at it what is your suggestion for a way for companies to keep track of the numerous claims included in each of the over 500,000 patents applied for in the US each year, much less the quarter of a million granted and the other 250,000+ applied for but denied?
You don't seem to reason things out sometimes, hoping no one pays attention I suppose. The fact that a patent was applied for is no reason for the tech world to come to a halt and wait to see if it will be in the 50% that get approved... assuming anyone even noted it was applied for in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Ever the school-yard taunter Jr.
Your lack of a good point is obvious. Present a reasoned argument why an individual or company should put any development of their own on hold until the patent office chooses to either approve or deny a patent, in whole or part, perhaps 6-10 years later or even more, so we have a real discussion. While you're at it what is your suggestion for a way for companies to keep track of the numerous claims included in each of the over 500,000 patents applied for in the US each year, much less the quarter of a million granted and the other 250,000+ applied for but denied?
You don't seem to reason things out sometimes, hoping no one pays attention I suppose. The fact that a patent was applied for is no reason for the tech world to come to a halt and wait to see if it will be in the 50% that get approved... assuming anyone even noted it was applied for in the first place.
As though Google actually develops this stuff independently. Google's MO, as we all know, is to reverse engineer and, when possible (think books) simply outright steal. The culture at Google is a culture of thieves and vultures, not honest, hard working creative engineers.
This is the difference between Apple and Google. Apple creates. Google copies and destroys.
You really should be in possession of all the facts before spouting such nonsense. Apple was granted some extremely vague and broad patents which have allowed them to get the nexus banned. Apple could go after pretty much any phone maker with those patents, but of course have targetted Google and Samsung because they're feeling the heat. It's just poor sport.
You should also have a look at android to see how many features in iOS 5 and 6 appeared in android months or even years ago. Sometimes a problem just has a single best solution, so multiple developers will use it.
Unless you come up with a different (read: actual) argument, I don't ever want to see this crap posted again.
That's not me-in-mod-mode talking, of course, so feel free to keep repeating yourself to the hollow, echoing walls.