Ahh so you know for a certainty that Google was trying to get access to your personal wireless network when the picture of your house was taken?
Yes, we know that Google Streetview cars were recording and accessing wireless access points when they were taking images and recording their geolocation. This is not something that can be argued by someone with a sound mind.
That's why they stopped OEM licensing of Mac OS, that's why they don't license iOS etc.
Actually they stopped doing OEM licensing because they lost tons of money trying to compete with Microsoft using a method that MS was much better at (even then) had all the better partners, and even worse for Apple, MS could do this without competing with themselves. The key problem with Apple’s OEM deals was that they were still developing their own hardware. Other venders always had the ability to under price Apple since they don’t have to subside the software with hardware unlike Apple. Apple could never properly compete with their own partners (you want to avoid doing that) and that doesn’t even factor in the fact that Apple’s partners were never as big as Windows OEM vendors.
They tried to play in MS turf when MS knew all the tricks and they did so from the worst position possible. MS was already king of the castle when Apple cloned their OS. It was not a Jobs idea and it was the first thing to go when Jobs came back as CEO. Jobs knew that as long as they were a hardware company they couldn't be in the cloning business. MS overall is not a hardware company and when they are (Zune, Xbox) they don’t clone. The sole exception is the Surface which isn’t for sale yet. The only reason I see MS competing with cloners is the fact they are such a dominant position and the cloners are so dependent on MS for their survival. They are really in a bad position.
Yes, we know that Google Streetview cars were recording and accessing wireless access points when they were taking images and recording their geolocation. This is not something that can be argued by someone with a sound mind.
Yes this is true but Hill60 still doesn't know if they actually accessed that particular router or not. Either way wasn't Google actually cleared of any wrong doing?
There is actually relatively little wrong with the current patent system. It works, overburdened though it is. What's wrong is companies ripping off the patent holders and trying to change the law to fit their misdeeds. If Apple had ripped off Google, the obvious would still apply.
There are two key problems with the current patent system, both of which if fixed would do away with much patent litigation now.
The first is procedural. Patents don't get the review they need, and so patents that the engineers in the business would consider obvious and patents with prior art get approved. Once a patent is approved, the burden of proof becomes very high to invalidate it - which would only be justified if the evaluation process before approval was sufficiently rigorous.
The second is legal. You can hold on to a patent for decades, and then say "wait, this product that's been shipping all this time, it's infringing on my stuff." There should be a period of time, say a year after wide release, where failure to file becomes an implied license.
Edit: Oh, I'll add a third. Someone has a patent for a process for a very specific purpose (creating an automated response bot for a chat system) and then squints real hard and says "Hey, Siri infringes on this". The burden of proof for infringement on a patent described as related to a completely different process should be very high, the presumption should be that if the patent sets forth a way to handle a chat system, it only applies to chat systems.
We had various forms of touch input for years and they all sucked until the first iPhone came out. It's not just about the hardware but the software as well.
So? Why should that give others the right to steal Apple's ideas?
As a member of MPEG LA, Google may not be able to use it's affiliate/subsidiary to enforce an agreement outside the scope of the terms of their existing membership agreement.
Oops, I think I heard the sound of a twelve and a half billion dollar bullet entering a foot.
Actually, I find it amusing that Motorola (a division of Google) is trying to block sales of XBoxes for being unwilling to pay the jacked up prices Motorola is demanding for their H.264 patents, when Google argued against H.264 because *horrors* there were patents involved. Not sure if that's irony or "a lousy way to win an argument".
Yes this is true but Hill60 still doesn't know if they actually accessed that particular router or not. Either way wasn't Google actually cleared of any wrong doing?
No, actually, they were found to have lied to regulators.
And, yes, if the drove by his house while his router was on, they accessed his wireless network, that's how the data collection program worked.
Although I can't believe I'm actually replying to tekstud.
If Apple had tap, shake, rattle or roll to unlock that's what Googke would want to use.
Your absolutely correct. Whatever Apple had chosen to do would have been seen as being desirable to copy as they were first to market and thus first to success with the product concept and designs.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
It's more than just the hardware. As an iOS and Android developer, I can tell you that Apple's software implementation of multitouch is simply brilliant and allows for a fluid user-interface. Android's implementation is limited, slow and inelegant. The probably buy LCD panels and touch screen components from the same companies, but one is much more accurate. For instance, Apple actually tracks a lot of data about each touch and calculates touches based on that. I believe that's what the patents are about... their implementation of multi-touch, not the fact of whether the technology existed before them or not. Truth be told, there was nothing like the iPhone when it first debuted (I saw the original keynote). Many people mocked the phone because it was so limited (no keyboard! no SD slot! no apps!). But five years later, it's all common sense to have multitouch on a mobile device. It wasn't always that way.
There are two key problems with the current patent system, both of which if fixed would do away with much patent litigation now.
So, because there is a spotlight being shone on patent disputes now, versus the probably thousands of other cases on the books, it's suddenly MORE IMPORTANT to "do away with patent litigation"? No!
Patent disputes should be sorted out in courtrooms or in voluntary mediation. Where else would disputes be handled? On Twitter? Here?
Patent disputes are no different from any other kind of property dispute and I believe rash changes to the USPTO for political points or to satisfy some nebulous public dissatisfaction would be bad for patents and have repercussions far beyond the intent.
It's more than just the hardware. As an iOS and Android developer, I can tell you that Apple's software implementation of multitouch is simply brilliant and allows for a fluid user-interface. Android's implementation is limited, slow and inelegant. The probably buy LCD panels and touch screen components from the same companies, but one is much more accurate. For instance, Apple actually tracks a lot of data about each touch and calculates touches based on that. I believe that's what the patents are about... their implementation of multi-touch, not the fact of whether the technology existed before them or not. Truth be told, there was nothing like the iPhone when it first debuted (I saw the original keynote). Many people mocked the phone because it was so limited (no keyboard! no SD slot! no apps!). But five years later, it's all common sense to have multitouch on a mobile device. It wasn't always that way.
As I hear tell, Apple's version of multi-touch runs smoother due to iOS' Cocoa touch, which is in the core framework (it includes, among other things, Core animation and Core data). Because of this, touch events are given priority, whereas in Android it is not given priority and it will never be able to beat iOS in this respect because of the original programming decisions made for Android. Also, I think Apple has a patent that covers this exact thing.
Comments
Yes, we know that Google Streetview cars were recording and accessing wireless access points when they were taking images and recording their geolocation. This is not something that can be argued by someone with a sound mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
That's why they stopped OEM licensing of Mac OS, that's why they don't license iOS etc.
Actually they stopped doing OEM licensing because they lost tons of money trying to compete with Microsoft using a method that MS was much better at (even then) had all the better partners, and even worse for Apple, MS could do this without competing with themselves. The key problem with Apple’s OEM deals was that they were still developing their own hardware. Other venders always had the ability to under price Apple since they don’t have to subside the software with hardware unlike Apple. Apple could never properly compete with their own partners (you want to avoid doing that) and that doesn’t even factor in the fact that Apple’s partners were never as big as Windows OEM vendors.
They tried to play in MS turf when MS knew all the tricks and they did so from the worst position possible. MS was already king of the castle when Apple cloned their OS. It was not a Jobs idea and it was the first thing to go when Jobs came back as CEO. Jobs knew that as long as they were a hardware company they couldn't be in the cloning business. MS overall is not a hardware company and when they are (Zune, Xbox) they don’t clone. The sole exception is the Surface which isn’t for sale yet. The only reason I see MS competing with cloners is the fact they are such a dominant position and the cloners are so dependent on MS for their survival. They are really in a bad position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Yes, we know that Google Streetview cars were recording and accessing wireless access points when they were taking images and recording their geolocation. This is not something that can be argued by someone with a sound mind.
Yes this is true but Hill60 still doesn't know if they actually accessed that particular router or not. Either way wasn't Google actually cleared of any wrong doing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
There is actually relatively little wrong with the current patent system. It works, overburdened though it is. What's wrong is companies ripping off the patent holders and trying to change the law to fit their misdeeds. If Apple had ripped off Google, the obvious would still apply.
There are two key problems with the current patent system, both of which if fixed would do away with much patent litigation now.
The first is procedural. Patents don't get the review they need, and so patents that the engineers in the business would consider obvious and patents with prior art get approved. Once a patent is approved, the burden of proof becomes very high to invalidate it - which would only be justified if the evaluation process before approval was sufficiently rigorous.
The second is legal. You can hold on to a patent for decades, and then say "wait, this product that's been shipping all this time, it's infringing on my stuff." There should be a period of time, say a year after wide release, where failure to file becomes an implied license.
Edit: Oh, I'll add a third. Someone has a patent for a process for a very specific purpose (creating an automated response bot for a chat system) and then squints real hard and says "Hey, Siri infringes on this". The burden of proof for infringement on a patent described as related to a completely different process should be very high, the presumption should be that if the patent sets forth a way to handle a chat system, it only applies to chat systems.
So? Why should that give others the right to steal Apple's ideas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Guess what.
As a member of MPEG LA, Google may not be able to use it's affiliate/subsidiary to enforce an agreement outside the scope of the terms of their existing membership agreement.
Oops, I think I heard the sound of a twelve and a half billion dollar bullet entering a foot.
Actually, I find it amusing that Motorola (a division of Google) is trying to block sales of XBoxes for being unwilling to pay the jacked up prices Motorola is demanding for their H.264 patents, when Google argued against H.264 because *horrors* there were patents involved. Not sure if that's irony or "a lousy way to win an argument".
Groan. Looks like friedarooni and absdezignz have hijacked yet another thread.
On to the next one...
No, actually, they were found to have lied to regulators.
And, yes, if the drove by his house while his router was on, they accessed his wireless network, that's how the data collection program worked.
Although I can't believe I'm actually replying to tekstud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
so multitouch should belong to one company?
morons.
Anyone who uses a Z in replace of S cannot be taken seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
If Apple had tap, shake, rattle or roll to unlock that's what Googke would want to use.
Your absolutely correct. Whatever Apple had chosen to do would have been seen as being desirable to copy as they were first to market and thus first to success with the product concept and designs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Groan. Looks like friedarooni and absdezignz have hijacked yet another thread.
On to the next one...
Just the latest in an unending string of pseudonyms for Tekstud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Just the latest in an unending string of pseudonyms for Tekstud.
lol had him blocked so missed his post but can see he is still going on about me being tekstud even though a mod has told him otherwise.
It's more than just the hardware. As an iOS and Android developer, I can tell you that Apple's software implementation of multitouch is simply brilliant and allows for a fluid user-interface. Android's implementation is limited, slow and inelegant. The probably buy LCD panels and touch screen components from the same companies, but one is much more accurate. For instance, Apple actually tracks a lot of data about each touch and calculates touches based on that. I believe that's what the patents are about... their implementation of multi-touch, not the fact of whether the technology existed before them or not. Truth be told, there was nothing like the iPhone when it first debuted (I saw the original keynote). Many people mocked the phone because it was so limited (no keyboard! no SD slot! no apps!). But five years later, it's all common sense to have multitouch on a mobile device. It wasn't always that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetDon
There are two key problems with the current patent system, both of which if fixed would do away with much patent litigation now.
So, because there is a spotlight being shone on patent disputes now, versus the probably thousands of other cases on the books, it's suddenly MORE IMPORTANT to "do away with patent litigation"? No!
Patent disputes should be sorted out in courtrooms or in voluntary mediation. Where else would disputes be handled? On Twitter? Here?
Patent disputes are no different from any other kind of property dispute and I believe rash changes to the USPTO for political points or to satisfy some nebulous public dissatisfaction would be bad for patents and have repercussions far beyond the intent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline
It's more than just the hardware. As an iOS and Android developer, I can tell you that Apple's software implementation of multitouch is simply brilliant and allows for a fluid user-interface. Android's implementation is limited, slow and inelegant. The probably buy LCD panels and touch screen components from the same companies, but one is much more accurate. For instance, Apple actually tracks a lot of data about each touch and calculates touches based on that. I believe that's what the patents are about... their implementation of multi-touch, not the fact of whether the technology existed before them or not. Truth be told, there was nothing like the iPhone when it first debuted (I saw the original keynote). Many people mocked the phone because it was so limited (no keyboard! no SD slot! no apps!). But five years later, it's all common sense to have multitouch on a mobile device. It wasn't always that way.
As I hear tell, Apple's version of multi-touch runs smoother due to iOS' Cocoa touch, which is in the core framework (it includes, among other things, Core animation and Core data). Because of this, touch events are given priority, whereas in Android it is not given priority and it will never be able to beat iOS in this respect because of the original programming decisions made for Android. Also, I think Apple has a patent that covers this exact thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Get a different job then if using Windows effects your well being so much.
Jragosta has an exemplary posting history here and your reply to him is rather harsh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Jragosta has an exemplary posting history here and your reply to him is rather harsh.
lololol yeah right...ok. Jragosta regularly talks nonsense....
My reply was exactly what I wanted to say in the manner I wanted it to appear.