I really did wish to know what he perceived as identical. He may have logical and real examples, or perhaps he just used the wrong term and meant similar, or maybe he's misunderstood something he read somewhere. In any case there's no need to poke fun or intimidate him. Give him a chance to explain his view.
Read the post again (all of you):
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2stepbay
The problem is you are supporting or defending the sale of stolen property.
Imagine you created an innovative, ground breaking product. A year or so later your next door neighbor showed off an identical version of your product, touting their intellectual creativity and ingenuity. How would that work for you?
There are two separate statements there. 1) That buying a device that incorporates stolen [intellectual] property is supporting the theft (which it is). 2) Posing the hypothetical "what if ... how would you feel" question to illustrate the desire someone might have to protect the intellectual property they believed to be rightfully theirs.
If 2stepbay wants to chime in and state they were implying that the Galaxy Nexus is identical to an iPhone, or Android is identical to iOS, the so be it. If that's the case then I'm completely off base here, and I admit it. Until they do however, you've got nothing other than taking a single word out of context and drawing a conclusion that doesn't necessarily follow.
Perhaps if your comprehension fails and you would like to know what someone means, then you could ask them instead of assuming a meaning on their behalf and challenging them to defend it.
Ummm. ... Isn't that pretty much the same thing I said in my post you're quoting? Let him explain what he meant before jumping in with taunts? Better yet don't use taunts at all.
Ummm. ... Isn't that pretty much the same thing I said in my post you're quoting? Let him explain what he meant before jumping in with taunts? Better yet don't use taunts at all.
Great to be popular around here. Of course, the Nexus is not "identical" (poor word choice), but its genesis comes purportedly (that ought to satisfy you legal beagles) from intellectual property created by Apple. While the Courts will decide where this ultimately goes, the initial stay order seemingly indicates sufficient evidence exists showing Samsung with their hands deeply in someone else's cookie jar.
In a broader sense, Google, Samsung, HTC etc. failure to acknowledge and fairly compensate the source of "their creative inspiration", underscores a sick mentality, driven by a quest to earn money regardless of the consequences. Yet, no matter how you color the picture, it's still wrong to steal other people's intellectual property, regardless of the rationale. Further, consumers buying products born out of this perverse mind-set literally give tacit approval and encouragement to this type of sick corporate behavior. I agree the patent system needs to be revamped. However, beyond the legal perspective and framework, there lies an inherent, base understanding within everyone of right and wrong. Sadly, this line is too often blurred to justify one's actions, especially in the world of commerce and banking.
So you have absolutely no qualms about purchasing stolen property. Dude, you need a reality checkup. BTW...karma...directly or indirectly triggered is always a bitch.
Considering the Galaxy Nexus injunction was primarily being considered because it was infringing on 'Universal Search', I proudly say 'steal' away. The fact that a patent was even issued for this is laughable, and the only good I can see coming out of it is maybe some changes will start to take place at the USPTO.
Considering the Galaxy Nexus injunction was primarily being considered because it was infringing on 'Universal Search', I proudly say 'steal' away. The fact that a patent was even issued for this is laughable, and the only good I can see coming out of it is maybe some changes will start to take place at the USPTO.
Then I guess you think Google should not have exclusive rights to the PageRank patent (a software patent on search, BTW)? Without this patent being granted, Google would not even exist today. And without this patent other search engines (like Bing or Yahoo) would be able to match Google's superior results, and take away their advantage in the market.
Then I guess you think Google should not have exclusive rights to the PageRank patent (a software patent on search, BTW)? Without this patent being granted, Google would not even exist today. And without this patent other search engines (like Bing or Yahoo) would be able to match Google's superior results, and take away their advantage in the market.
The PageRank patent is held by Stanford university, and is FAR from being as generic as Apple's 'Universal Search' patent. If the PageRank patent was as equally generic with something along the lines of 'an algorithm for prioritizing hyperlinks', then my answer would also be YES, this should not be a valid patent. However, even in it's simple form, following are some of the equations defined in the patent:
If you would like to try to make the case that this is as generic as Apple's Universal Search Patent with it's "predetermined heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area, and the search areas include storage media accessible by the apparatus", then be my guest. I would say you definitely have your work cut out for you!
I would bet anything that samsung have employed a legion of people to post on these forums to write pro Samsung posts.
Yes, because we all know that Apple NEVER does that sort of thing. Every corporation on the planet does it. Facebook does it. Amazon actually offers a service to hire people in third world countries to write reviews for products. You can even pay to have fake reviews posted on all the various app stores.
Great to be popular around here. Of course, the Nexus is not "identical" (poor word choice), but its genesis comes purportedly (that ought to satisfy you legal beagles) from intellectual property created by Apple. While the Courts will decide where this ultimately goes, the initial stay order seemingly indicates sufficient evidence exists showing Samsung with their hands deeply in someone else's cookie jar.
In a broader sense, Google, Samsung, HTC etc. failure to acknowledge and fairly compensate the source of "their creative inspiration", underscores a sick mentality, driven by a quest to earn money regardless of the consequences. Yet, no matter how you color the picture, it's still wrong to steal other people's intellectual property, regardless of the rationale. Further, consumers buying products born out of this perverse mind-set literally give tacit approval and encouragement to this type of sick corporate behavior. I agree the patent system needs to be revamped. However, beyond the legal perspective and framework, there lies an inherent, base understanding within everyone of right and wrong. Sadly, this line is too often blurred to justify one's actions, especially in the world of commerce and banking.
Claiming that Google, Samsung, HTC, et al, have absolutely, beyond the shadow of a doubt, got their inspiration solely from Apple is pretty baseless. Why don't we analyze the iPhone and see what was copied from Microsoft (direct rips of the home screen, copy and paste, dialer, SLIDE TO UNLOCK (Yes, Windows CE had this in 2005; 2 full years before Apple "patented" it)), Motorola, HTC, and Palm. Those corporations KNEW beyond the shadow of a doubt that Apple had taken influences from all of their mobile, competing products at the time and used them in the iPhone. How about Facetime that Apple "claimed" to have innovated? Yes, Motorola had done it a good 5 years before in Australia. These companies only started going to war after Apple started wielding it's list of patents around and threatening everyone else when Apple is clearly as guilty as the rest of them.
My point here is that if you are going to "claim" that Google, Samsung, HTC, etc are failing to acknowledge that they used Apple as a "source of their creative inspiration", make sure that you include Apple in that list as both a consumer of said inspirations and also a provider. They [Apple] are FAR from innocent when it comes to stealing ideas from other companies.
So you have absolutely no qualms about purchasing stolen property. Dude, you need a reality checkup. BTW...karma...directly or indirectly triggered is always a bitch.
Depends on what your definition of "stolen" is... Using a Mac? Yup, it's stolen. It is very well documented that Steve Jobs STOLE the idea for the first versions of the Mac OS when he was on a tour of a Xerox facility. He also made it very well known that IBM's OS-X warp was the basis for numerous technologies STILL used today in Macs. He didn't ask IBM to use these technologies. He just saw them, reverse engineered and then implemented them. Apple didn't pay IBM a single dime in royalties until 2001 when IBM finally leveraged their patents in open court.
Depends on what your definition of "stolen" is... Using a Mac? Yup, it's stolen. It is very well documented that Steve Jobs STOLE the idea for the first versions of the Mac OS when he was on a tour of a Xerox facility. He also made it very well known that IBM's OS-X warp was the basis for numerous technologies STILL used today in Macs. He didn't ask IBM to use these technologies. He just saw them, reverse engineered and then implemented them. Apple didn't pay IBM a single dime in royalties until 2001 when IBM finally leveraged their patents in open court.
Which will make you one of the 7 people on the planet who have been able to upgrade to the latest version of Android.
My Galaxy Nexus updated to 4.1.1 yesterday too, on the first day of the official release, along with probably a few millions of others... I am in France btw.
Yes, because we all know that Apple NEVER does that sort of thing. Every corporation on the planet does it. Facebook does it. Amazon actually offers a service to hire people in third world countries to write reviews for products. You can even pay to have fake reviews posted on all the various app stores.
Number one, "Because 'everyone' does it, no one should be punished for it."
Using a Mac? Yup, it's stolen. It is very well documented that Steve Jobs STOLE the idea for the first versions of the Mac OS when he was on a tour of a Xerox facility.
Number three: And the dumbest lie anyone could ever say about Apple.
That's a trifecta right there. Baseball has some nice rules about threes, I think, but maybe that's me.
My Galaxy Nexus updated to 4.1.1 yesterday too, on the first day of the official release, along with probably a few millions of others... I am in France btw.
I guess that makes you and I 2 out of the 7.
Pretty awesome that 28% of the Galaxy Nexus users are in this thread.
The PageRank patent is held by Stanford university, and is FAR from being as generic as Apple's 'Universal Search' patent. If the PageRank patent was as equally generic with something along the lines of 'an algorithm for prioritizing hyperlinks', then my answer would also be YES, this should not be a valid patent. However, even in it's simple form, following are some of the equations defined in the patent:
If you would like to try to make the case that this is as generic as Apple's Universal Search Patent with it's "predetermined heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area, and the search areas include storage media accessible by the apparatus", then be my guest. I would say you definitely have your work cut out for you!
Why don't you show how Google's heuristic algorithms are any more worthy than Apple's heuristic algorithms, given that they perform similar functions.
The Galaxy Nexus is not exactly "identical" to the iPhone, but it is very close.
Take a step back 5 years ago. Before Apple invented the iPhone there was nothing like it. All other phones were alike in that they were just feature phones except maybe the BB with its push email function.
Apple created a whole new type of phone. A phone with a touch screen, icons and apps. Now tell me before that did Samsung have anything even remotely close to that? The answer is a definitive NO!
So unless you are living on another planet, in another galaxy, no pun intended, the Nexus is a total copy. No it is not "identical" but I think you get my point unless you are totally brain dead. It is the entire phone, the idea for the phone type, that is a copy. Forget about a few software details. Look at the entire forest instead of a single tree.
If you are honest with yourself, and not just an Android fan boy, you will agree.
4. An infringement of 1 software patent cannot lead to the ban of a product, it needs to be multiple. (frand patents should not carry a ban at all, and frand payments should be outlined by the state not the Frand patent holder I'm looking at you samdung and Moto.)
So everyone gets to "steal" Apple's patented technology one time. Just don't do it more than once. Wow!
How about this. How about I come to your house and use your car once. And then everyone else can also use it once. Of course a court can make us pay you for its use but you can not stop us from using it. How would you like that?
A court can force you to let someone else use your property even if you object to said use. You will be compensated but you must allow it.
Sounds like sanctioned stealing to me.
Perhaps now you might want to consider your opinion.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodGrief
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
My question was a sincere one.
Then you framed it wrong. Very, very wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I really did wish to know what he perceived as identical. He may have logical and real examples, or perhaps he just used the wrong term and meant similar, or maybe he's misunderstood something he read somewhere. In any case there's no need to poke fun or intimidate him. Give him a chance to explain his view.
Read the post again (all of you):
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2stepbay
The problem is you are supporting or defending the sale of stolen property.
Imagine you created an innovative, ground breaking product. A year or so later your next door neighbor showed off an identical version of your product, touting their intellectual creativity and ingenuity. How would that work for you?
There are two separate statements there. 1) That buying a device that incorporates stolen [intellectual] property is supporting the theft (which it is). 2) Posing the hypothetical "what if ... how would you feel" question to illustrate the desire someone might have to protect the intellectual property they believed to be rightfully theirs.
If 2stepbay wants to chime in and state they were implying that the Galaxy Nexus is identical to an iPhone, or Android is identical to iOS, the so be it. If that's the case then I'm completely off base here, and I admit it. Until they do however, you've got nothing other than taking a single word out of context and drawing a conclusion that doesn't necessarily follow.
Perhaps if your comprehension fails and you would like to know what someone means, then you could ask them instead of assuming a meaning on their behalf and challenging them to defend it.
Ummm. ... Isn't that pretty much the same thing I said in my post you're quoting? Let him explain what he meant before jumping in with taunts? Better yet don't use taunts at all.
Wrong question.
How many will be able to run Android 4.1 AND will have 4.1 available from their carrier?
If history is any guide, the answer is very, very small. Upgrades in Android-ville are few and far between.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Ummm. ... Isn't that pretty much the same thing I said in my post you're quoting? Let him explain what he meant before jumping in with taunts? Better yet don't use taunts at all.
Great to be popular around here.
In a broader sense, Google, Samsung, HTC etc. failure to acknowledge and fairly compensate the source of "their creative inspiration", underscores a sick mentality, driven by a quest to earn money regardless of the consequences. Yet, no matter how you color the picture, it's still wrong to steal other people's intellectual property, regardless of the rationale. Further, consumers buying products born out of this perverse mind-set literally give tacit approval and encouragement to this type of sick corporate behavior. I agree the patent system needs to be revamped. However, beyond the legal perspective and framework, there lies an inherent, base understanding within everyone of right and wrong. Sadly, this line is too often blurred to justify one's actions, especially in the world of commerce and banking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2stepbay
So you have absolutely no qualms about purchasing stolen property. Dude, you need a reality checkup. BTW...karma...directly or indirectly triggered is always a bitch.
Considering the Galaxy Nexus injunction was primarily being considered because it was infringing on 'Universal Search', I proudly say 'steal' away. The fact that a patent was even issued for this is laughable, and the only good I can see coming out of it is maybe some changes will start to take place at the USPTO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Considering the Galaxy Nexus injunction was primarily being considered because it was infringing on 'Universal Search', I proudly say 'steal' away. The fact that a patent was even issued for this is laughable, and the only good I can see coming out of it is maybe some changes will start to take place at the USPTO.
Then I guess you think Google should not have exclusive rights to the PageRank patent (a software patent on search, BTW)? Without this patent being granted, Google would not even exist today. And without this patent other search engines (like Bing or Yahoo) would be able to match Google's superior results, and take away their advantage in the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Then I guess you think Google should not have exclusive rights to the PageRank patent (a software patent on search, BTW)? Without this patent being granted, Google would not even exist today. And without this patent other search engines (like Bing or Yahoo) would be able to match Google's superior results, and take away their advantage in the market.
The PageRank patent is held by Stanford university, and is FAR from being as generic as Apple's 'Universal Search' patent. If the PageRank patent was as equally generic with something along the lines of 'an algorithm for prioritizing hyperlinks', then my answer would also be YES, this should not be a valid patent. However, even in it's simple form, following are some of the equations defined in the patent:
If you would like to try to make the case that this is as generic as Apple's Universal Search Patent with it's "predetermined heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area, and the search areas include storage media accessible by the apparatus", then be my guest. I would say you definitely have your work cut out for you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lerxt
I would bet anything that samsung have employed a legion of people to post on these forums to write pro Samsung posts.
Yes, because we all know that Apple NEVER does that sort of thing. Every corporation on the planet does it. Facebook does it. Amazon actually offers a service to hire people in third world countries to write reviews for products. You can even pay to have fake reviews posted on all the various app stores.
Let's stay somewhat non-partisan here, shall we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2stepbay
Great to be popular around here.
In a broader sense, Google, Samsung, HTC etc. failure to acknowledge and fairly compensate the source of "their creative inspiration", underscores a sick mentality, driven by a quest to earn money regardless of the consequences. Yet, no matter how you color the picture, it's still wrong to steal other people's intellectual property, regardless of the rationale. Further, consumers buying products born out of this perverse mind-set literally give tacit approval and encouragement to this type of sick corporate behavior. I agree the patent system needs to be revamped. However, beyond the legal perspective and framework, there lies an inherent, base understanding within everyone of right and wrong. Sadly, this line is too often blurred to justify one's actions, especially in the world of commerce and banking.
Claiming that Google, Samsung, HTC, et al, have absolutely, beyond the shadow of a doubt, got their inspiration solely from Apple is pretty baseless. Why don't we analyze the iPhone and see what was copied from Microsoft (direct rips of the home screen, copy and paste, dialer, SLIDE TO UNLOCK (Yes, Windows CE had this in 2005; 2 full years before Apple "patented" it)), Motorola, HTC, and Palm. Those corporations KNEW beyond the shadow of a doubt that Apple had taken influences from all of their mobile, competing products at the time and used them in the iPhone. How about Facetime that Apple "claimed" to have innovated? Yes, Motorola had done it a good 5 years before in Australia. These companies only started going to war after Apple started wielding it's list of patents around and threatening everyone else when Apple is clearly as guilty as the rest of them.
My point here is that if you are going to "claim" that Google, Samsung, HTC, etc are failing to acknowledge that they used Apple as a "source of their creative inspiration", make sure that you include Apple in that list as both a consumer of said inspirations and also a provider. They [Apple] are FAR from innocent when it comes to stealing ideas from other companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2stepbay
So you have absolutely no qualms about purchasing stolen property. Dude, you need a reality checkup. BTW...karma...directly or indirectly triggered is always a bitch.
Depends on what your definition of "stolen" is... Using a Mac? Yup, it's stolen. It is very well documented that Steve Jobs STOLE the idea for the first versions of the Mac OS when he was on a tour of a Xerox facility. He also made it very well known that IBM's OS-X warp was the basis for numerous technologies STILL used today in Macs. He didn't ask IBM to use these technologies. He just saw them, reverse engineered and then implemented them. Apple didn't pay IBM a single dime in royalties until 2001 when IBM finally leveraged their patents in open court.
Let me be the first to welcome to our universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Which will make you one of the 7 people on the planet who have been able to upgrade to the latest version of Android.
My Galaxy Nexus updated to 4.1.1 yesterday too, on the first day of the official release, along with probably a few millions of others... I am in France btw.
Number one, "Because 'everyone' does it, no one should be punished for it."
Number two: "Not only does everyone else not do it, here's a list of things that Apple did to steal from everyone else."
Number three: And the dumbest lie anyone could ever say about Apple.
That's a trifecta right there. Baseball has some nice rules about threes, I think, but maybe that's me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi
My Galaxy Nexus updated to 4.1.1 yesterday too, on the first day of the official release, along with probably a few millions of others... I am in France btw.
I guess that makes you and I 2 out of the 7.
Pretty awesome that 28% of the Galaxy Nexus users are in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
show me where Android 4.0 is identical to iOS...
I'll be waiting.
Unified search, hence the banning which is currently stayed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by corerooted
SLIDE TO UNLOCK (Yes, Windows CE had this in 2005; 2 full years before Apple "patented" it)),
They had push a button, poke with a stick to unlock, quit with the bullshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Wrong question.
How many will be able to run Android 4.1 AND will have 4.1 available from their carrier?
If history is any guide, the answer is very, very small. Upgrades in Android-ville are few and far between.
I will, on my Galaxy Nexus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
The PageRank patent is held by Stanford university, and is FAR from being as generic as Apple's 'Universal Search' patent. If the PageRank patent was as equally generic with something along the lines of 'an algorithm for prioritizing hyperlinks', then my answer would also be YES, this should not be a valid patent. However, even in it's simple form, following are some of the equations defined in the patent:
If you would like to try to make the case that this is as generic as Apple's Universal Search Patent with it's "predetermined heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area, and the search areas include storage media accessible by the apparatus", then be my guest. I would say you definitely have your work cut out for you!
Why don't you show how Google's heuristic algorithms are any more worthy than Apple's heuristic algorithms, given that they perform similar functions.
Be our guest.
The Galaxy Nexus is not exactly "identical" to the iPhone, but it is very close.
Take a step back 5 years ago. Before Apple invented the iPhone there was nothing like it. All other phones were alike in that they were just feature phones except maybe the BB with its push email function.
Apple created a whole new type of phone. A phone with a touch screen, icons and apps. Now tell me before that did Samsung have anything even remotely close to that? The answer is a definitive NO!
So unless you are living on another planet, in another galaxy, no pun intended, the Nexus is a total copy. No it is not "identical" but I think you get my point unless you are totally brain dead. It is the entire phone, the idea for the phone type, that is a copy. Forget about a few software details. Look at the entire forest instead of a single tree.
If you are honest with yourself, and not just an Android fan boy, you will agree.
Really!
Lets take a look at number 4.
4. An infringement of 1 software patent cannot lead to the ban of a product, it needs to be multiple. (frand patents should not carry a ban at all, and frand payments should be outlined by the state not the Frand patent holder I'm looking at you samdung and Moto.)
So everyone gets to "steal" Apple's patented technology one time. Just don't do it more than once. Wow!
How about this. How about I come to your house and use your car once. And then everyone else can also use it once. Of course a court can make us pay you for its use but you can not stop us from using it. How would you like that?
A court can force you to let someone else use your property even if you object to said use. You will be compensated but you must allow it.
Sounds like sanctioned stealing to me.
Perhaps now you might want to consider your opinion.