Maybe that's what miniature minds believe, but I'm surprised that Apple doesn't actually sue more companies, considering the amount of cheap ripoffs, and nearly identical looking, inferior products on the market.
They seem to be doing quite a lot of suing to me. Unfortunately for Apple they also are loosing a lot of their cases.
Just yesterday the high court in the UK denied their claimes against HTC. It was ruled that HTC did not violate the photo management patent. It was also ruled that Apples “multi-touch”, “multilingual keyboard” and “slide to unlock” patents were invalid.
And being the high court, it is case closed. No more appeals for apple here.
They seem to be doing quite a lot of suing to me. Unfortunately for Apple they also are loosing a lot of their cases.
Just yesterday the high court in the UK denied their claimes against HTC. It was ruled that HTC did not violate the photo management patent. It was also ruled that Apples “multi-touch”, “multilingual keyboard” and “slide to unlock” patents were invalid.
And being the high court, it is case closed. No more appeals for apple here.
You win some and you lose some. Apple is obviously not going to be successful in all of the court cases which they are involved in. And these lawsuits are taking place in different countries, with different laws and different judges etc. When all is said and done, we shall see which of the companies will have lost the most. Apple will be just fine, and Apple has an obligation to people like me to sue others who infringe upon their IP. When I mean people like me, I mean shareholders.
I disagree that Apple litigates on products that have not come out. Show me examples! What I have see, though, is Apple is served themselves by companies that come out of nowhere and don't produce anything saying they have the patents on something (also software patents). And Apple has to pay them trolls! That's why the game is so unfair. Patent trolls do extract money from Microsoft, Apple, Nokia, etc. I have read reports on how many companies are licensed to patents of these trolls. But when it comes to Apple, I bet you other companies don't want to pay a dime to their biggest competitor. I bet Google is the least licensed of all. (Just my opinion. And I do believe that under Cook, Apple will be satisfied with payment and not just deny use to other companies.)
You might want to check out 'Rockstar Consortium'. This is what Apple and Microsoft use to do their dirty work. Apple is just like any other patent troll, they just use a loophole in the system to make it 'legal'.
Some of the patents for the Google Glasses project were applied for back in 2005 and granted in 2010. No doubt Apple was aware of the project early on ...
Funny that yesterday GG was all about when the parent was granted, but today he's all about when it was applied for.
Oh, my mistake, he reversed himself on the same day.
You might want to check out 'Rockstar Consortium'. This is what Apple and Microsoft use to do their dirty work. Apple is just like any other patent troll, they just use a loophole in the system to make it 'legal'.
Perhaps you should check it out and let us know exactly what "dirty work" has been done. Or were you just engaging in baseless innuendo?
It's disturbing that the pro-Android/Google faction has so little regard for honesty.
Perhaps you should check it out and let us know exactly what "dirty work" has been done. Or were you just engaging in baseless innuendo?
It's disturbing that the pro-Android/Google faction has so little regard for honesty.
little regard for honesty? steve jobs was a notorious liar and documented thief (see the famous info regarding 'reality distortion field') who had no qualms about ripping off ideas and calling them his own. Ivy himself has said he was saddened by Steve not giving credit to Ivy over products. all true.
even now, articles are pointing out apples probable entry into the 7" tablet market and how Jobs would denounce something while readying a product for entry. some might say that was just 'clever' but he was just a con-man (probably the greatest con man who ever lived).
Apple filed a patent over a device for displaying a dead carcass but they realized that it would be invalidated by prior art seeing as their idealogical idols over in the former ussr had already employed the device to show off the much loved Lenin.
Soviets or National Socialist? you decide. they will validate those points by kicking me off and deleting posts.
But if you are an apple fanboy you get to insult, ridicule and attack and go on posting (see most posts by "Apple II" for a good example)
Perhaps you should check it out and let us know exactly what "dirty work" has been done. Or were you just engaging in baseless innuendo?
It's disturbing that the pro-Android/Google faction has so little regard for honesty.
Are you just to lazy to do a google search or were you hoping I was making it up? Here is what is going on with your beloved and oh-so-honest Apple:
But Widdowson is a specialist. He’s one of 10 reverse-engineers working full time for a stealthy company funded by some of the biggest names in technology: Apple, Microsoft, Research In Motion, Sony, and Ericsson. Called the Rockstar Consortium, the 32-person outfit has a single-minded mission: It examines successful products, like routers and smartphones, and it tries to find proof that these products infringe on a portfolio of over 4,000 technology patents once owned by one of the world’s largest telecommunications companies.
When a Rockstar engineer uncovers evidence of infringement, the company documents it, contacts the manufacturer, and demands licensing fees for the patents in question. The demand is backed by the implicit threat of a patent lawsuit in federal court. Eight of the company’s staff are lawyers. In the last two months, Rockstar has started negotiations with as many as 100 potential licensees. And with control of a patent portfolio covering core wireless communications technologies such as LTE (Long Term Evolution) and 3G, there is literally no end in sight.
“Pretty much anybody out there is infringing,” says John Veschi, Rockstar’s CEO. “It would be hard for me to envision that there are high-tech companies out there that don’t use some of the patents in our portfolio.”
Since then, Rockstar Bidco has given way to a new entity, called Rockstar Consortium. And for the first time, the consortium’s strategy for the Nortel patents is clear. Ownership of about 2,000 of the patents was shifted to the individual companies that won the auction: Apple, Microsoft, et al. But the remaining 4,000 have been transferred to Rockstar Consortium, which is now a pure patent exploitation operation funded by all of the winning bidders except EMC, which has dropped out of the picture, according to Veschi.
Rockstar is a special kind of company. Because it doesn’t actually make anything, it can’t be countersued in patent cases. That wouldn’t be the case with Apple or Microsoft if they had kept the patents for themselves. And because it’s independent, it can antagonize its owners’ partners and customers in ways that its owner companies could not. “The principals have plausible deniability,” says Thomas Ewing, an attorney and intellectual property consultant. “They can say with a straight face: ‘They’re an independent company. We don’t control them.’ And there’s some truth to that.”
When the Rockstar Bidco group purchased Nortel’s patents, the U.S. Department of Justice took a look at the deal, as part of a broader investigation into several large technology patent sales. The DoJ was concerned that patent attacks might somehow be used to knock Rockstar’s competitors out of the smartphone or tablet market. But in February, the DoJ closed its investigation, in part because Microsoft and Apple had promised to license many of their core wireless patents under reasonable terms to anyone who needed them.
But the new company — Rockstar Consortium — isn’t bound by the promises that its member companies made, according to Veschi. “We are separate,” he says. “That does not apply to us.”
Because it doesn’t actually produce anything, some knock Rockstar as a straight-up patent troll. “This deal is indicative of a much larger fundamental problem that we see today,” says Julie Samuels, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
They're not even fun anymore. You know, you used to be able to poke a little fun at these idiot trolls before you banned them, but they just all deserve to be banned straight off these days, don't they?
Surprised Apple hasn't applied for a patent on a swivel chair that has '4 legs and a place to sit, with a resting back that pivots and or rotates." then sues Thomas Jefferson's descendents since the patent office has clearly stated Apple invented this chair.
I wonder if Apple has put patents in the system for a 4 wheeled, gas driven apparatus that has doors, windows and a roof, so they can sue every car company in the world, because clearly Apple invented the car? Apparently, no patent is too broad for Apple.
And I wonder if you realize that every supposition in your post is based on completely invented, non-existent premises, painting Apple in a negative light, and yet using nothing real to do that with?
Here's another just for fun, "I'm surprised Apple hasn't applied for a patent on 'a computer that has a screen and a keyboard', and then sues every PC manufacturer out there… and I wonder if they have patents in for 'a large wood case containing ivory keys that strike strings to make musical sounds', so they can sue every piano maker in the world, because clearly Apple invented the piano!
Since, of course, no patent is too broad for Apple...
And I wonder if you realize that every supposition in your post is based on completely invented, non-existent premises, painting Apple in a negative light, and yet using nothing real to do that with?
Here's another just for fun, "I'm surprised Apple hasn't applied for a patent on 'a computer that has a screen and a keyboard', and then sues every PC manufacturer out there… and I wonder if they have patents in for 'a large wood case containing ivory keys that strike strings to make musical sounds', so they can sue every piano maker in the world, because clearly Apple invented the piano!
Since, of course, no patent is too broad for Apple...
Silliness...
It's called sarcasm. Perhaps this is a foreign concept to you?
There are way too many examples to give, surely most people have seen a bunch of the nearly identical looking ripoff products already, but I'll just post one of the recent ones that I saw.
This has nothing to do with rectangles, Apple patenting a square or any of the other stupid jokes that certain misinformed people and demented Fandroids like to make. It has to do with the talentless people who made this ripoff. Their intention was clearly to deliberately rip off the Macbook Air's design when they were making this design.
That does look like kind of a ripoff, even though I hate the one angle thing as it's often misleading. I've mentioned before that it would be interesting to hear from someone with some amount of background in patent law. In terms of design patents and trade dress, you need some method of testing both validity and infringement. We've all read about Samsung's lawyers being asked to tell the two tablets apart. I'd like to know more about how a company goes about proving infringement on a design. Without standards for proving it, you can reach out pretty far building an imaginary wall around anything with any remote resemblance. There has been little discussion over key points of what makes the design other than fuzzy look and feel type comments that are difficult to quantify or even identify without extensive first hand use. I've mentioned the example of the F700 before for a reason. It was one of the closest things of its time to the iphone. They came out around the same time. The F700 had a touch screen implementation that did not require a stylus, but it also had a built in keyboard. Doing a side by side on the internet could display it without the keyboard out making the two look more alike (keep in mind I don't care which side of the argument whatever jpeg supports). Anyway it would be interesting to know more about this as these laws and things like copying are never as clear as you might think when examined in great detail. If there wasn't much to understand, there would be no reason for a firm to allocate more than a single lawyer to the case, maybe two just to be safe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
@ Apple ][
That me a long time to realize that is not a MBA. Who makes that? Samsung?
It seemed immediately obvious to me. Whether those are actually spacers or holes, I did not recall them on the MBA. I also recalled a different camera design. Why assume everything is Samsung?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Yes, you're absolutely right. An image was labelled wrong on Google search.
I'm going to go hunt for a few more Mac clones.
That is pretty funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I found another clone, and I doubled checked it this time, and this is definitely not an actual Apple device.
This has a cheaper look to it. It might be the photo (although you could make this as a render). I see somewhat of a seam on the trackpad toward the bottom. This is presumably the older style (well, the mac never had separate ones) of right and left click trackpad buttons. I find a lot of this to be quite silly. If they're going to compete on something, why not design around the engineering? Apple has the "pretty box" brand image going back many years. No one will dethrone them there. Make something that runs cool and silent instead and hit a nice price point with it. Design something for strong reliability to minimize warranty costs. It's possible that I'm ignorant on some of what goes into design past the point of reference art and initial mockup renders, but both obvious and non obvious things exist. It seems obvious to include usb ports, a trackpad, a device that allows for functional typing, etc. There's a tendency to play it safe if you can't command huge margins. Many oems do not wish to stand out in a bad way when it comes to tech blog reviews, and many of those have panned some reasonably good designs, especially those from smaller companies that lacked the economy of scale. I don't think it's necessary to ape one company or another. I like the way Lenovo went with their take on the ultrabook thing. They did do the trimmed corners and crowned surfaces. I liked it when they didn't taper things here http://www.laptopspec.net/2011/09/lenovo-ideapad-u300s-ultrabook-u300-and-u400-laptops/ ; Their recent use of chiclet keyboards to fit in has drawn some negative attention. Anyway I always felt the tapered design was a little gimmicky in that it imposed a lot of limitations on ports to thin out a portion of the machine. I like the rMBP better in this regard, although I'm sad about ethernet. Eventually seeing 10G ethernet would have been nice, although I'm surprised we haven't read about more R&D from Apple on short range wireless bus implementations. They are still quite flawed, but a big selling point would be cord minimization especially with mobile devices. Consider that you could eventually drop your macbook pro or ipad in front of that cinema display and elect to have it switch display output to the 27" without plugging anything in. Research actually goes back a few years on wireless usb and wireless displayport, but they don't seem to have improved in stability just yet to the point where any would make their way into consumer products. It's more that published standards exist. Anyway I'm trailing off topic here.
I wonder what Google is thinking about this right about now. Would only using one HUD over an eye good enough to skirt this patent?
Ouch!
Yes it would. Apple's patent specifically refers to the need for two displays. It even requires separate processing for the left and right displays. It doesn't impact Google Glass at all. That doesn't mean that Apple won't try anyway, but as it stands it's doesn't apply at all to Google Glasses.
That's the only argument Googlelites come up with when presented with Apple patents. But, but, but... Apple has copied Notification Center from Google! There are no other things Googlelites refer to make their case on how shameful Apple is in copying others. (Oh yeah, and the Xerox thing from 30 years ago.) This is not to say that all Apple's implementations are original. Like they had to pay $100 million to Creative for their patent on music player UI that Apple used in clickwheel iPods. Surely though, Apple brought a lot of new UI language for the multi-touch phone OS. How much will hold as patentable is up to the courts.
Only Notifications?! How about....Direct text instead of answering a call? Custom notification sounds? Google Wallet? Widgets? OTA updates? Wireless sync? Notification access from lock screen? Camera from unlock screen? The larger screen that's most likely coming that most android phones have had for years? Do not disturb feature that's been on Google Voice forever? That's just for starters...
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Maybe that's what miniature minds believe, but I'm surprised that Apple doesn't actually sue more companies, considering the amount of cheap ripoffs, and nearly identical looking, inferior products on the market.
They seem to be doing quite a lot of suing to me. Unfortunately for Apple they also are loosing a lot of their cases.
Just yesterday the high court in the UK denied their claimes against HTC. It was ruled that HTC did not violate the photo management patent. It was also ruled that Apples “multi-touch”, “multilingual keyboard” and “slide to unlock” patents were invalid.
And being the high court, it is case closed. No more appeals for apple here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairb
They seem to be doing quite a lot of suing to me. Unfortunately for Apple they also are loosing a lot of their cases.
Just yesterday the high court in the UK denied their claimes against HTC. It was ruled that HTC did not violate the photo management patent. It was also ruled that Apples “multi-touch”, “multilingual keyboard” and “slide to unlock” patents were invalid.
And being the high court, it is case closed. No more appeals for apple here.
You win some and you lose some. Apple is obviously not going to be successful in all of the court cases which they are involved in. And these lawsuits are taking place in different countries, with different laws and different judges etc. When all is said and done, we shall see which of the companies will have lost the most. Apple will be just fine, and Apple has an obligation to people like me to sue others who infringe upon their IP. When I mean people like me, I mean shareholders.
You might want to check out 'Rockstar Consortium'. This is what Apple and Microsoft use to do their dirty work. Apple is just like any other patent troll, they just use a loophole in the system to make it 'legal'.
Funny that yesterday GG was all about when the parent was granted, but today he's all about when it was applied for.
Oh, my mistake, he reversed himself on the same day.
Perhaps you should check it out and let us know exactly what "dirty work" has been done. Or were you just engaging in baseless innuendo?
It's disturbing that the pro-Android/Google faction has so little regard for honesty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Perhaps you should check it out and let us know exactly what "dirty work" has been done. Or were you just engaging in baseless innuendo?
It's disturbing that the pro-Android/Google faction has so little regard for honesty.
little regard for honesty? steve jobs was a notorious liar and documented thief (see the famous info regarding 'reality distortion field') who had no qualms about ripping off ideas and calling them his own. Ivy himself has said he was saddened by Steve not giving credit to Ivy over products. all true.
even now, articles are pointing out apples probable entry into the 7" tablet market and how Jobs would denounce something while readying a product for entry. some might say that was just 'clever' but he was just a con-man (probably the greatest con man who ever lived).
Apple filed a patent over a device for displaying a dead carcass but they realized that it would be invalidated by prior art seeing as their idealogical idols over in the former ussr had already employed the device to show off the much loved Lenin.
Soviets or National Socialist? you decide. they will validate those points by kicking me off and deleting posts.
But if you are an apple fanboy you get to insult, ridicule and attack and go on posting (see most posts by "Apple II" for a good example)
Are you just to lazy to do a google search or were you hoping I was making it up? Here is what is going on with your beloved and oh-so-honest Apple:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
Surprised Apple hasn't applied for a patent on a swivel chair that has '4 legs and a place to sit, with a resting back that pivots and or rotates." then sues Thomas Jefferson's descendents since the patent office has clearly stated Apple invented this chair.
I wonder if Apple has put patents in the system for a 4 wheeled, gas driven apparatus that has doors, windows and a roof, so they can sue every car company in the world, because clearly Apple invented the car? Apparently, no patent is too broad for Apple.
And I wonder if you realize that every supposition in your post is based on completely invented, non-existent premises, painting Apple in a negative light, and yet using nothing real to do that with?
Here's another just for fun, "I'm surprised Apple hasn't applied for a patent on 'a computer that has a screen and a keyboard', and then sues every PC manufacturer out there… and I wonder if they have patents in for 'a large wood case containing ivory keys that strike strings to make musical sounds', so they can sue every piano maker in the world, because clearly Apple invented the piano!
Since, of course, no patent is too broad for Apple...
Silliness...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
There are way too many examples to give, surely most people have seen a bunch of the nearly identical looking ripoff products already, but I'll just post one of the recent ones that I saw.
This has nothing to do with rectangles, Apple patenting a square or any of the other stupid jokes that certain misinformed people and demented Fandroids like to make. It has to do with the talentless people who made this ripoff. Their intention was clearly to deliberately rip off the Macbook Air's design when they were making this design.
That does look like kind of a ripoff, even though I hate the one angle thing as it's often misleading. I've mentioned before that it would be interesting to hear from someone with some amount of background in patent law. In terms of design patents and trade dress, you need some method of testing both validity and infringement. We've all read about Samsung's lawyers being asked to tell the two tablets apart. I'd like to know more about how a company goes about proving infringement on a design. Without standards for proving it, you can reach out pretty far building an imaginary wall around anything with any remote resemblance. There has been little discussion over key points of what makes the design other than fuzzy look and feel type comments that are difficult to quantify or even identify without extensive first hand use. I've mentioned the example of the F700 before for a reason. It was one of the closest things of its time to the iphone. They came out around the same time. The F700 had a touch screen implementation that did not require a stylus, but it also had a built in keyboard. Doing a side by side on the internet could display it without the keyboard out making the two look more alike (keep in mind I don't care which side of the argument whatever jpeg supports). Anyway it would be interesting to know more about this as these laws and things like copying are never as clear as you might think when examined in great detail. If there wasn't much to understand, there would be no reason for a firm to allocate more than a single lawyer to the case, maybe two just to be safe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
@ Apple ][
That me a long time to realize that is not a MBA. Who makes that? Samsung?
It seemed immediately obvious to me. Whether those are actually spacers or holes, I did not recall them on the MBA. I also recalled a different camera design. Why assume everything is Samsung?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Yes, you're absolutely right. An image was labelled wrong on Google search.
I'm going to go hunt for a few more Mac clones.
That is pretty funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I found another clone, and I doubled checked it this time, and this is definitely not an actual Apple device.
This has a cheaper look to it. It might be the photo (although you could make this as a render). I see somewhat of a seam on the trackpad toward the bottom. This is presumably the older style (well, the mac never had separate ones) of right and left click trackpad buttons. I find a lot of this to be quite silly. If they're going to compete on something, why not design around the engineering? Apple has the "pretty box" brand image going back many years. No one will dethrone them there. Make something that runs cool and silent instead and hit a nice price point with it. Design something for strong reliability to minimize warranty costs. It's possible that I'm ignorant on some of what goes into design past the point of reference art and initial mockup renders, but both obvious and non obvious things exist. It seems obvious to include usb ports, a trackpad, a device that allows for functional typing, etc. There's a tendency to play it safe if you can't command huge margins. Many oems do not wish to stand out in a bad way when it comes to tech blog reviews, and many of those have panned some reasonably good designs, especially those from smaller companies that lacked the economy of scale. I don't think it's necessary to ape one company or another. I like the way Lenovo went with their take on the ultrabook thing. They did do the trimmed corners and crowned surfaces. I liked it when they didn't taper things here http://www.laptopspec.net/2011/09/lenovo-ideapad-u300s-ultrabook-u300-and-u400-laptops/ ; Their recent use of chiclet keyboards to fit in has drawn some negative attention. Anyway I always felt the tapered design was a little gimmicky in that it imposed a lot of limitations on ports to thin out a portion of the machine. I like the rMBP better in this regard, although I'm sad about ethernet. Eventually seeing 10G ethernet would have been nice, although I'm surprised we haven't read about more R&D from Apple on short range wireless bus implementations. They are still quite flawed, but a big selling point would be cord minimization especially with mobile devices. Consider that you could eventually drop your macbook pro or ipad in front of that cinema display and elect to have it switch display output to the 27" without plugging anything in. Research actually goes back a few years on wireless usb and wireless displayport, but they don't seem to have improved in stability just yet to the point where any would make their way into consumer products. It's more that published standards exist. Anyway I'm trailing off topic here.
this looks like the headgear that Levar Burton's character wore in Star Trek TNG...
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub
I wonder what Google is thinking about this right about now. Would only using one HUD over an eye good enough to skirt this patent?
Ouch!
Yes it would. Apple's patent specifically refers to the need for two displays. It even requires separate processing for the left and right displays. It doesn't impact Google Glass at all. That doesn't mean that Apple won't try anyway, but as it stands it's doesn't apply at all to Google Glasses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John F.
That's the only argument Googlelites come up with when presented with Apple patents. But, but, but... Apple has copied Notification Center from Google! There are no other things Googlelites refer to make their case on how shameful Apple is in copying others. (Oh yeah, and the Xerox thing from 30 years ago.) This is not to say that all Apple's implementations are original. Like they had to pay $100 million to Creative for their patent on music player UI that Apple used in clickwheel iPods. Surely though, Apple brought a lot of new UI language for the multi-touch phone OS. How much will hold as patentable is up to the courts.
Only Notifications?! How about....Direct text instead of answering a call? Custom notification sounds? Google Wallet? Widgets? OTA updates? Wireless sync? Notification access from lock screen? Camera from unlock screen? The larger screen that's most likely coming that most android phones have had for years? Do not disturb feature that's been on Google Voice forever? That's just for starters...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
It's called sarcasm. Perhaps this is a foreign concept to you?
Sarcasm. I know sarcasm…
How about Silliness… Perhaps an equally foreign concept to you?
I confess though, the point of your sarcasm was lost on me… what was your point then?