Google argues popular Apple patents are de facto standards essential

1679111214

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 275
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



    If Apple had tap, shake, rattle or roll to unlock that's what Googke would want to use.


     


    But before Google gets around to copying it, wouldn't Apple fans have already hailed "tap, shake, rattle or roll to unlock" as the best, easiest, and most innovative way to unlock a phone?

  • Reply 162 of 275
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    tulkas wrote: »
    Seems like google is all but acknowledging infringement. They are now trying have their use of the infringed IP declared standards.

    Obviously.

    Just like the Google Books fiasco. They got caught with their massive intellectual property theft, so they asked Congress to write a law making it OK.
  • Reply 163 of 275
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


     


    Jragosta has an exemplary posting history here and your reply to him is rather harsh.



     


    How was the response any different from Apple fans saying to people who criticize Apple "If you don't like it, don't buy it", "Nobody forced you to buy it", etc?

  • Reply 164 of 275
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post



    Apple should accept this and have the courts make them essential standards and then collect megabucks.

    Even if they only collect 1 dollar per patent that's 4 bucks per ever single android device out there. Kerching!!!!

    That is far more acceptable than paying lawyers billions

    ON THE OTHER HAND

    Google have just backed up Apple in proving that these patents are unique, oops!


    "I don't want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won't want it. I've got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that's all I want." - Steve Jobs

  • Reply 165 of 275
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    haggar wrote: »
    How was the response any different from Apple fans saying to people who criticize Apple "If you don't like it, don't buy it", "Nobody forced you to buy it", etc?

    There's a difference between having to use a product that you have to use in order to support your family and voluntarily choosing a product that is not required.
  • Reply 166 of 275
    chiachia Posts: 714member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post


    Get a different job then if using Windows effects your well being so much. 



     

    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    Windows has affected his well being because it has effected him into a state of being frustrated and angry.


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     
  • Reply 167 of 275
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member


    This is interesting. Let's say Apple wins convincingly in courts around the world, and all touchscreen phones are found to violate their IP (granted, this would be extreme and unlikely).  Will courts ban touchscreen phones?  It's unlikely Apple will grant a license to anyone.  Then what?

  • Reply 168 of 275
    splifsplif Posts: 603member


    Then why hasn't Google sued? Could it be that they don't have any ownership on "their" notification feature.

  • Reply 169 of 275
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    splif wrote: »
    Then why hasn't Google sued? Could it be that they don't have any ownership on "their" notification feature.

    That's because Google is altruistic. Remember their motto is "Do no evil." It's un-possible to fathom Google would say one thing and do another.
  • Reply 170 of 275
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    Remember their motto is "Do no evil."


     


    Ah, it's "Don't be evil". I only mention the difference because I'm sure there's some weasely explanation some anti-Apple whozit will give for why the "difference" matters.


     


    ????

  • Reply 171 of 275

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



    Similarly, Apple could not patent 'unlocking a phone'. That's generic. They could (and did) patent a very specific method of doing so.


     


    And they did which we find has prior art and even video from an earlier device,  Realistically though, what they patented on the phone already has prior art even in the physical world.  There are sliding switches everywhere so many could argue that sliding a switch (virtual or physical) is a natural act which has been around for decades and long before Apple was even a company.  That however did not stop some yahoo from approving a patent on that specific action (again, one that has been naturally used for decades)


    See both sides have very valid points.  And these are points that should have been considered *before* this patent was issued.  They no more deserve this patent than I do for "method of sliding a switch to turn on electricity".

  • Reply 172 of 275
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Ah, it's "Don't be evil". I only mention the difference because I'm sure there's some weasely explanation some anti-Apple whozit will give for why the "difference" matters.

    ????

    Nice correction and pedantically speaking there is a clear difference. Google's motto uses the present-tense subjunctive verb referring to the self as a whole whilst what I wrote refers to an action. So one could argue that good people (or companies) could sometimes do something deemed evil because they are inherently flawed because they are made by man. Do no evil, on the other hand, will refer to any action that could be construed as evil regardless of the person (or company) as a whole since it's possible for a bad person to do good things and a good person to do bad things.

    That said, one could also interpret to mean a suggestion from Google to others so they can take advantage of them more easily. I prefer that one. ????
  • Reply 173 of 275
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    It still amazes me how many people spend so much time trying to prove that Apple wasn't the first at something. Multi-touch supposedly was all the rage in 2006. Tablets existed before the iPad (duh!), Sony pioneered the ultraportable notebook, etc. But yet Apple was the first to bring to market a multi-touch smart phone and sell it in large quantities. Apple may not have invented the tablet but they've certainly defined the modern tablet. There is no comparison between sales of the iPad and sales of older PC tablets. And if Sony is to thank for thin and light laptops how come so many today are esentially MacBook Air clones? And how come the whole Ultrabook campaign from Intel/OEM's came AFTER the MacBook Air?

    I could give a crap less about prototypes or concepts. That's not absolute proof that what Apple did would have been done anyway, Jony Ive often talks about how they try to make/do things that seem obvious, seem inevitable, that their solutions often belie the complexity of the problem. How come the modern Android phones only came into existence AFTER the iPhone? If multi-touch was inevitable how come no phone had it before the iPhone? How come Steve Ballmer mocked it and said it wouldn't succeed in the enterprise because it didn't have a physical keyboard? Of course with hindsight being 20/20 you can say all these things were inevitable (just like HP says aluminum and glass laptops are inevitable). But Apple was able to use these technologies to successfully bring products to the market that sold in large quantities.
  • Reply 174 of 275
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    micronix wrote: »
    See both sides have very valid points.  And these are points that should have been considered *before* this patent was issued.  They no more deserve this patent than I do for "method of sliding a switch to turn on electricity".

    But Google appears to contradict that view in their current argument, in that they are implicitly admitting the validity of the patents, and, instead, claiming that they have become necessary and so should be defined as essential standards. As has been pointed out ad infinitum, however, they are only necessary if the goal is to copy Apple's commercially successful implementation, from which one concludes that even though they clearly could implement differently, they don't believe it would be as popular with consumers. And so the patent system could be argued to be working here - protecting Apple's commercial advantage gained from a specific implementation that they developed.
  • Reply 175 of 275
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Wow so really Apple has been copying themselves all these years....

  • Reply 176 of 275
    tooltalktooltalk Posts: 766member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post



    Touche! Ayn Rand, the heroine of free-market, anti-goverment nutjobs, died of cancer while on social security and medicare. Perished while suckling on the teat she so despised. What a hypocrite.


     


    eh?  Rand is a hypocrite because she paid her share of taxes all her life despite her ideological opposition to big gov't?  

  • Reply 177 of 275
    bmason1270bmason1270 Posts: 258member
    Funny thing is, one of the most blatant examples of ripping oft in the mobile phone arena (behind Samsung and their shameless ripping off of Apple) is Apple's shameless ripping off of the Android notification panel.

    Does Google even have a "Notification Center" without iOS?

    Regardless you can't "steal" what is "open source" anyway.
  • Reply 178 of 275
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,776member
    Excellent post. I don't know why apple doesn't just accept payment for their stuff rather than injunctions. That's crazy to waste billions in court when they can make billions more out of court.
  • Reply 179 of 275
    paul94544paul94544 Posts: 1,027member


    The horse that bolted out the door no longer belongs to you! fracking unbelievable

  • Reply 180 of 275
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,397member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rioviva View Post



    I actually agree with Google. On that note, I think their search algorithms have become essential for the industry. As much as I've tried switching to Bing or Yahoo, I keep coming back to Google's engine.

    Those algorithms should be de facto standards and licensed under FRAND


     


    My single search box quit working in Chrome some time ago.  Mucking about with the settings I tried switching the default search engine to Bing - and it started to work again.  I suppose if I switched back it would work again, but it's been months now and I've never bothered.  In fact I think I prefer Bing now - which has its own biases, but at least isn't trying to direct me to Google properties above all others - with a blatant rejiggering of the search algorithm - and gunking up my results with junk results from "friends" I don't know on Google+ (tho' I see Bing is getting very facebook friendly - but at least that's a site I use and know the names from).



    I do love me Google's reverse image search though for sourcing photos people post on social sites.....  ...anyway, both keep developing and I try to be agnostic about "believing" in either - and use other tools as well as needed.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    1) Of course they say that now when the entire industry is still playing catchup with Apple but remember 5 years ago how the iPhone was dismissed by so many. That's the problem with having such revolutionary technology and a slow judicial process, by the time it gets to court what seemed alien and unessential just a few years prior could seem essential. This is how technology has always worked.

    "One Generation's Invention Is Necessity Of The Next" ~Unknown

    2) There are some networking patents i know of, like with cellular air interfaces, that are essential because they do have to work the same across vendors to create a homogenous network, but I see no good examples of Apple's patents that are essential for the industry.

    3) At least Google is acknowledging that Apple has patented tech before others. That's more than I can say for the resident trolls of this forum.


     


    I'm on Apple's side in the current case, but looking at the whole deplorable state of IP law and litigation, I remain grateful it wasn't around at the time the Indo-Arabic  number system spread around the world.  That is, I suppose one could developed algebra, calculus and modern quantum physics with Roman numerals (though a bit difficult with the rights to zero belonging to the I-A patent holder)!) - but def slower and clumsier.....  


     


    On the other hand, if Einstein had held the rights to e=mc2, and licensed them to the US gov't, then all we'd have to do is sue Iran in the World Court to stop their nuke program.........


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post



    This is the first time Google has just come out and admitted the truth we already know. The iPhone is too good to be patented. It has become a human right, not just a competitive product. At least we can have an honest debate.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


     


    Hahaha....ha.......... I hope you were kidding...



     


    No.  I agree... ...Slide to Unlock is right up there with the 4th Amendment!!  image


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post


    Why would you "hate" a company? What has Google done to you personally that you would use such strong language?



    Here's a concrete example:  Back when MS was acting like Google is today (before getting its ears pinned back and growing up a bit), they repeatedly sabotaged and undercut many of their ISV's, including WordPerfect, which was (and is) a superior word processing tool.  This effected MY ability to work - and undercut the local economy of the state of Utah where I do business.  As noted in one prominent publication of the time, after leading WP to believe DOS development was continuing, they also kept jiggering the Windows API's (even though there was supposedly a "firewall" between the Windows and Office teams in Redmond), and the article I read noted that the slogan in Redmond was, "The coding's not done until WordPerfect won't run."


     


    Subsequently, it took WP about 18 extra months to come out with a working Win version and they never recovered from MS' head start.  And I still have to use the black box of Word formatting in order to share docs with the world. 


     


    And I yeah, hated them for that.  Sue me.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

    Touche! Ayn Rand, the heroine of free-market, anti-goverment nutjobs, died of cancer while on social security and medicare. Perished while suckling on the teat she so despised. What a hypocrite.


     


    All messengers are imperfect (as are all messages for that matter).  You want to get into "feet of clay," bring it on with your perfect avatars, my brotha'......  


     


    ...Rand was an eccentric refugee from the early Soviet Union with plenty of peccadilloes, but brought a useful perspective on society represented almost nowhere else in the world of literature, dominated as the arts are by the left.  I'm a writer, and I can tell you the books haven't survived because of the fluid metaphors and great sex scenes... ..hardly great writing in her books... ...but because they contain meaty ideas (whether you agree with them or not) almost nowhere else fleshed out in fiction.



    It's the same with our politics.  You look at the current election and see (especially this election) a great chance for a real and meaningful debate on two starkly different philosophies on where the country should be headed - which could be highly educational to the populace as a whole.  But instead we get a diet of all peripheral (at best!) red herrings all the time - a dog riding on top of a family car 30 years ago, where's the Prez' college papers, signatures on FEC documents when MR was still the titular head of Bain Cap, Birther and Madrassas junk, selected stats, talking points, spin, etc., ad nauseum.  And polls, polls, polls focusing on the whole horse race aspect.....


     


    And never a substantive debate about the real ideas espoused by either side. 



    Gag me with a spoon and call it eating....  ...but debating ideas solely (or mostly) by attacking the personalities of those who espouse them (either the promulgator as a hypocrite or the believers - i.e., as "nutjobs") is the first refuge of the intellectually dishonest and philosophically shallow.

Sign In or Register to comment.