Not taking sides but this was an interesting comment. In other words, "I'd rather get my news via hearsay and potentially uninformed opinion rather than from the source."
How odd.
When you grow up, you'll realize that there's a distinction between data and information. You'll also realize that if you're smart enough, you can handle information.
Wishful thinking, Apple Fanboi. It's widely guestimated that Samsung is paying $1-$5 range. Seriously, it would be nonsensical for Samsung to make low-end androids models that cost $150 when Microsoft tax alone accounts for 10%. Only in anantksundaram's wet dream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
I said less than $15.. Microsoft's initial asking price was $15, but nobody pays the asking-price - HTC was known to have struck a deal with Microsoft for $5. Samsung makes low / high end smartphones and is known to be paying anywhere between $1 - $5 per unit (or ~1% of total cost).
You seriously don't think Microsoft is collecting $5B in Android patents licensing fees alone, do you?
Lol. You certainly have confirmed my suspicion that you live in a world you have created for yourself. (I too may, but at least, I have company).
Using that line of reasoning how could Oracle have expected to get a couple of billion from suing Google over Android? What would be the difference between Oracle or Apple suing?
Using that line of reasoning how could Oracle have expected to get a couple of billion from suing Google over Android? What would be the difference between Oracle or Apple suing?
Completely irrelevant once again, congratulations for being confused. You're once again comparing apples to oranges, stretching facts as always. Now lets see what condescending, passive aggressive thing you have to say now.
I sure hope so. If TV had the same entertainment value as real life I can't imagine it ever talking off as a medium.
Hehe... that is really silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
Oracle was suing Google over Java; not Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic
Completely irrelevant once again, congratulations for being confused. You're once again comparing apples to oranges, stretching facts as always. Now lets see what condescending, passive aggressive thing you have to say now.
Guys guys.... I'm still wondering on what basis Apple would pursue Google. Let me put it this way, what does the stock version of Android infringe upon specifically? This is a real question as I don't think anyone will mistake it for IOS. I'm asking because I'd like to see someone answer this, not because I care about Android. I think it's weird that anyone would identify themselves and relate to others based on the phone they use.
Yes, they were suing Google over Android's supposedly stolen elements of Java to implement it, but that's beside the point. The question was directed to this statement:
"Although the software was written by Google they don't implement it, nor really profit from it. They can be sued but it's more difficult."
That's two reasons the OP gave for Apple not suing Google directly, and he's not the only one to have mentioned them before. They don't use it themselves and they don't really profit from it. Since neither of those two reasons discouraged Oracle from suing Google for billions, why would they discourage Apple?
Yes, they were suing Google over Android's supposedly stolen elements of Java to implement it, but that's beside the point. The question was directed to this statement:
"Although the software was written by Google they don't implement it, nor really profit from it. They can be sued but it's more difficult."
That's two reasons the OP gave for Apple not suing Google directly, and he's not the only one to have mentioned them before. They don't use it themselves and they don't really profit from it. Since neither of those two reasons discouraged Oracle from suing Google for billions, why would they discourage Apple?
...but Apple are suing Google directly, via their patent trolling subsidiary Motorola.
...but Apple are suing Google directly, via their patent trolling subsidiary Motorola.
Which lawsuit did Apple initiate after Google showed an interest in buying Moto? I believe Apple sued Motorola, not Google. The lawsuits simply became an inheritance, after the fact.
You and I had a short exchange over what you considered "patent trolling" several days ago. Does this fit with your definition?
"...Yet patent records show that Apple later provided at least two patents -- via a company named Cliff Island -- to Digitude Innovations, a Virginia-based patent aggregator (Non-practicing entity) that has as its major stakeholder Altitude Capital Partners, a New York-based venture capital firm.
The two patents that Apple transferred -- Patent Nos. 6,208,879 and 6,456,841 -- form half the basis of Digitude's February 2012 lawsuit (PDF) against Motorola Mobility ."
Read the entire article and learn why Google, Apple, Verizon and a dozen others initially funded Intellectual Ventures, one of the companies most often referred to as a "patent troll". Then continue to read why Google decided to break from them and not join for a second round of funding (but Apple did). You may come away with an understanding you didn't start with.
Nice to see Apple assert some of their QuickTime VR patents.
Never understood why they hadn't sooner.
People act like the street view stuff Google is doing is something new when in fact Apple was pioneering the technology more than a decade before Google released StreetView.
I have used QTVR in the past. I think the part about stitching the images together was quite impressive. I bought a special lens for the purpose of creating those panoramics. I think one difference between how Google acquires their images is that they actually shoot the 360 degree view with a special camera instead of stitching sequential shots together. I have read the Apple patent and it definitely discusses adding at least two media objets to the scene so their patent seems different at least in the part about creating the VR scene.
With respect to the playback of the VR scene there may be some infringement however in the case of Google the process of manipulating the image is really just an ability of Flash. If you consider Flash a programming language which is compiled into an executable then I guess it is an application so it may infringe (of course I don't even play a lawyer on TV nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night)
I read recently that another company Panomap also has a patent and is suing both Apple and Google regarding QuickTime VR and Street View.
This is a bit disingenuous isn't it? The whole point is that Google ripped off Java to create Android in that "Davlik" is basically Java by another name. Technically, Oracle sued over Java, but the whole point of the suit is that Android infringed on their IP.
The thing that people should really sit up and take notice of about the Oracle/Google case is that it's pretty self-evident that Google did *intentionally* rip of Java in the creation of Davlik. Thera are mountains of similarity between the two, and there are emails from Google employees that clearly state their intentions to rip off Java and change it just enough so they wouldn't have to pay anything or get caught. There are many literary figures that have had their careers ended by so-called plagiarism wherein the small phrases they were supposed to have copied were much less damning than the pages and pages of similarities between Java and Davlik and no proof that they actually copied has ever come forward.
The lesson there is that Oracle lost this rather obvious case. The jury just didn't see it, and the jury in this case might not see the obviousness of Samsung copying Apple either. It's not so much about who is right and wrong and what the law is as what the average juror at the end of the day is going to believe. The facts are secondary as they were in the Oracle case.
Why so defensive and argumentative? How is the word "hearsay" and the phrase "potentially uninformed opinion" weasely?
There are informed and uninformed opinions. I would classify non-lawyers talking legalities and legal strategy to be people who fall into the latter category. Considering so many people here seem to get their "news" from few sources, "potentially uninformed" was the appropriate phrasing.
Please look up the word hearsay. Hearsay is not the equivalent to rumour. It is information not from the original source. Appleinsider is far from unbiased and if you disagree, you've been here too long.
Still trying to understand why you are being so defensive. I asked a valid question. It wasn't an attack. I would ask the same question of anyone who is happy to obtain their information from a single source.
Someone is being overly sensitive.
I could have been oversensitive, I know I sometimes am.
Your post however, whether intentionally or not, seemed to be making sweeping blanket statements about the unreliability of AppleInsider and stretching the language to do so. You were then referring to a courtroom blog (essentially on the same level as the sort of information one might get here), as some kind of paramount "source."
Hearsay is indeed sometimes used as a synonym for "rumour" it's one of it's main uses in fact. Rumour is hearsay "passed along," by definition.
The lesson there is that Oracle lost this rather obvious case. The jury just didn't see it, and the jury in this case might not see the obviousness of Samsung copying Apple either. It's not so much about who is right and wrong and what the law is as what the average juror at the end of the day is going to believe. The facts are secondary as they were in the Oracle case.
Possibly, but the jury doesn't have to decipher code this time (or at least not as much), they get to look at actual photos and compare finished HW and SW. I think that's a big benefit for Apple's lawyers in terms of getting the jury to understand what has been stolen.
Possibly, but the jury doesn't have to decipher code this time (or at least not as much), they get to look at actual photos and compare finished HW and SW. I think that's a big benefit for Apple's lawyers in terms of getting the jury to understand what has been stolen.
Depends how convincing a job Samsung has done with the whole EVERYONE GETS INSPIRED BY EVERYONE THEYRE SUING OVER ROUNDED RECTANGLES ANYWAY WE BUILT HALF THE PHONE WHO'S THE INNOVATOR NOW schtick.
I often wonder whether the current jury system is the best way to serve justice.
Take highly trained well educated lawyers, specialized in their field, to argue with each other, constantly breaking complex arguments into easy to understand soundbites,
so that the untrained, perhaps uneducated public jury, can make the final decision.
How can this jury (or any jury )decide on a complex case BUT to go by gut reaction and persuasion.
I often wonder whether the current jury system is the best way to serve justice.
Take highly trained well educated lawyers, specialized in their field, to argue with each other, constantly breaking complex arguments into easy to understand soundbites,
so that the untrained, perhaps uneducated public jury, can make the final decision.
How can this jury (or any jury )decide on a complex case BUT to go by gut reaction and persuasion.
It's not a perfect system but it's the best system I can imagine.
Can you imagine if scientists judged their work but gut feeling and persuasion ?
What manner of science do you think could be applied with verifiable and reliable tested methods of decision makings to show fault and determine a penalty?
What manner of science do you think could be applied with verifiable and reliable tested methods of decision makings to show fault and determine a penalty?
I'm speaking here of jury system in general.
I think a "professional" jury made up of well educated, trained and specialized men and women. Sworn to impartiality and fairness. Trained in the language of law (a language that negates ambiguity and double meaning).
A jury that understands scientific evidence and its implications. ( for DNA evidence etc), would make more intelligent decisions and allow the lawyers to argue and present cases at a much higher level.
And in THIS case, a jury that understands copyright law vs fair use, inspiration vs plagiarism and the whole concept of patents - would be worth having.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead
Not taking sides but this was an interesting comment. In other words, "I'd rather get my news via hearsay and potentially uninformed opinion rather than from the source."
How odd.
When you grow up, you'll realize that there's a distinction between data and information. You'll also realize that if you're smart enough, you can handle information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
Wishful thinking, Apple Fanboi. It's widely guestimated that Samsung is paying $1-$5 range. Seriously, it would be nonsensical for Samsung to make low-end androids models that cost $150 when Microsoft tax alone accounts for 10%. Only in anantksundaram's wet dream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
I said less than $15.. Microsoft's initial asking price was $15, but nobody pays the asking-price - HTC was known to have struck a deal with Microsoft for $5. Samsung makes low / high end smartphones and is known to be paying anywhere between $1 - $5 per unit (or ~1% of total cost).
You seriously don't think Microsoft is collecting $5B in Android patents licensing fees alone, do you?
Lol. You certainly have confirmed my suspicion that you live in a world you have created for yourself. (I too may, but at least, I have company).
I am sure it must make you happy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Using that line of reasoning how could Oracle have expected to get a couple of billion from suing Google over Android? What would be the difference between Oracle or Apple suing?
Oracle was suing Google over Java; not Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Using that line of reasoning how could Oracle have expected to get a couple of billion from suing Google over Android? What would be the difference between Oracle or Apple suing?
Completely irrelevant once again, congratulations for being confused. You're once again comparing apples to oranges, stretching facts as always. Now lets see what condescending, passive aggressive thing you have to say now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I sure hope so. If TV had the same entertainment value as real life I can't imagine it ever talking off as a medium.
Hehe... that is really silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
Oracle was suing Google over Java; not Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic
Completely irrelevant once again, congratulations for being confused. You're once again comparing apples to oranges, stretching facts as always. Now lets see what condescending, passive aggressive thing you have to say now.
Guys guys.... I'm still wondering on what basis Apple would pursue Google. Let me put it this way, what does the stock version of Android infringe upon specifically? This is a real question as I don't think anyone will mistake it for IOS. I'm asking because I'd like to see someone answer this, not because I care about Android. I think it's weird that anyone would identify themselves and relate to others based on the phone they use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
Oracle was suing Google over Java; not Android.
Yes, they were suing Google over Android's supposedly stolen elements of Java to implement it, but that's beside the point. The question was directed to this statement:
"Although the software was written by Google they don't implement it, nor really profit from it. They can be sued but it's more difficult."
That's two reasons the OP gave for Apple not suing Google directly, and he's not the only one to have mentioned them before. They don't use it themselves and they don't really profit from it. Since neither of those two reasons discouraged Oracle from suing Google for billions, why would they discourage Apple?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Yes, they were suing Google over Android's supposedly stolen elements of Java to implement it, but that's beside the point. The question was directed to this statement:
"Although the software was written by Google they don't implement it, nor really profit from it. They can be sued but it's more difficult."
That's two reasons the OP gave for Apple not suing Google directly, and he's not the only one to have mentioned them before. They don't use it themselves and they don't really profit from it. Since neither of those two reasons discouraged Oracle from suing Google for billions, why would they discourage Apple?
...but Apple are suing Google directly, via their patent trolling subsidiary Motorola.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
...but Apple are suing Google directly, via their patent trolling subsidiary Motorola.
Which lawsuit did Apple initiate after Google showed an interest in buying Moto? I believe Apple sued Motorola, not Google. The lawsuits simply became an inheritance, after the fact.
You and I had a short exchange over what you considered "patent trolling" several days ago. Does this fit with your definition?
"...Yet patent records show that Apple later provided at least two patents -- via a company named Cliff Island -- to Digitude Innovations, a Virginia-based patent aggregator (Non-practicing entity) that has as its major stakeholder Altitude Capital Partners, a New York-based venture capital firm.
The two patents that Apple transferred -- Patent Nos. 6,208,879 and 6,456,841 -- form half the basis of Digitude's February 2012 lawsuit (PDF) against Motorola Mobility ."
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9225831/Why_tech_vendors_fund_patent_trolls_
Read the entire article and learn why Google, Apple, Verizon and a dozen others initially funded Intellectual Ventures, one of the companies most often referred to as a "patent troll". Then continue to read why Google decided to break from them and not join for a second round of funding (but Apple did). You may come away with an understanding you didn't start with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus
Nice to see Apple assert some of their QuickTime VR patents.
Never understood why they hadn't sooner.
People act like the street view stuff Google is doing is something new when in fact Apple was pioneering the technology more than a decade before Google released StreetView.
I have used QTVR in the past. I think the part about stitching the images together was quite impressive. I bought a special lens for the purpose of creating those panoramics. I think one difference between how Google acquires their images is that they actually shoot the 360 degree view with a special camera instead of stitching sequential shots together. I have read the Apple patent and it definitely discusses adding at least two media objets to the scene so their patent seems different at least in the part about creating the VR scene.
With respect to the playback of the VR scene there may be some infringement however in the case of Google the process of manipulating the image is really just an ability of Flash. If you consider Flash a programming language which is compiled into an executable then I guess it is an application so it may infringe (of course I don't even play a lawyer on TV nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night)
I read recently that another company Panomap also has a patent and is suing both Apple and Google regarding QuickTime VR and Street View.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
Oracle was suing Google over Java; not Android.
This is a bit disingenuous isn't it? The whole point is that Google ripped off Java to create Android in that "Davlik" is basically Java by another name. Technically, Oracle sued over Java, but the whole point of the suit is that Android infringed on their IP.
The thing that people should really sit up and take notice of about the Oracle/Google case is that it's pretty self-evident that Google did *intentionally* rip of Java in the creation of Davlik. Thera are mountains of similarity between the two, and there are emails from Google employees that clearly state their intentions to rip off Java and change it just enough so they wouldn't have to pay anything or get caught. There are many literary figures that have had their careers ended by so-called plagiarism wherein the small phrases they were supposed to have copied were much less damning than the pages and pages of similarities between Java and Davlik and no proof that they actually copied has ever come forward.
The lesson there is that Oracle lost this rather obvious case. The jury just didn't see it, and the jury in this case might not see the obviousness of Samsung copying Apple either. It's not so much about who is right and wrong and what the law is as what the average juror at the end of the day is going to believe. The facts are secondary as they were in the Oracle case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead
Why so defensive and argumentative? How is the word "hearsay" and the phrase "potentially uninformed opinion" weasely?
There are informed and uninformed opinions. I would classify non-lawyers talking legalities and legal strategy to be people who fall into the latter category. Considering so many people here seem to get their "news" from few sources, "potentially uninformed" was the appropriate phrasing.
Please look up the word hearsay. Hearsay is not the equivalent to rumour. It is information not from the original source. Appleinsider is far from unbiased and if you disagree, you've been here too long.
Still trying to understand why you are being so defensive. I asked a valid question. It wasn't an attack. I would ask the same question of anyone who is happy to obtain their information from a single source.
Someone is being overly sensitive.
I could have been oversensitive, I know I sometimes am.
Your post however, whether intentionally or not, seemed to be making sweeping blanket statements about the unreliability of AppleInsider and stretching the language to do so. You were then referring to a courtroom blog (essentially on the same level as the sort of information one might get here), as some kind of paramount "source."
Hearsay is indeed sometimes used as a synonym for "rumour" it's one of it's main uses in fact. Rumour is hearsay "passed along," by definition.
Possibly, but the jury doesn't have to decipher code this time (or at least not as much), they get to look at actual photos and compare finished HW and SW. I think that's a big benefit for Apple's lawyers in terms of getting the jury to understand what has been stolen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Possibly, but the jury doesn't have to decipher code this time (or at least not as much), they get to look at actual photos and compare finished HW and SW. I think that's a big benefit for Apple's lawyers in terms of getting the jury to understand what has been stolen.
Depends how convincing a job Samsung has done with the whole EVERYONE GETS INSPIRED BY EVERYONE THEYRE SUING OVER ROUNDED RECTANGLES ANYWAY WE BUILT HALF THE PHONE WHO'S THE INNOVATOR NOW schtick.
I often wonder whether the current jury system is the best way to serve justice.
Take highly trained well educated lawyers, specialized in their field, to argue with each other, constantly breaking complex arguments into easy to understand soundbites,
so that the untrained, perhaps uneducated public jury, can make the final decision.
How can this jury (or any jury )decide on a complex case BUT to go by gut reaction and persuasion.
It's not a perfect system but it's the best system I can imagine.
Can you imagine if scientists judged their work but gut feeling and persuasion ?
What manner of science do you think could be applied with verifiable and reliable tested methods of decision makings to show fault and determine a penalty?
Right down to the cardboard finger hole packaging. Amazing that Samsung can even tread water in a case like this.
"Now you're saying Apple invented circles and holes in paper. You Apple fanbois...."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
What manner of science do you think could be applied with verifiable and reliable tested methods of decision makings to show fault and determine a penalty?
I'm speaking here of jury system in general.
I think a "professional" jury made up of well educated, trained and specialized men and women. Sworn to impartiality and fairness. Trained in the language of law (a language that negates ambiguity and double meaning).
A jury that understands scientific evidence and its implications. ( for DNA evidence etc), would make more intelligent decisions and allow the lawyers to argue and present cases at a much higher level.
And in THIS case, a jury that understands copyright law vs fair use, inspiration vs plagiarism and the whole concept of patents - would be worth having.