That would be the best outcome.
Talented as jobs was at CEO, I'm glad he's dead as his thermonuclear war against android was unrealistic. Hopefully cook is a lot more level headed in dealing with such issues.
You're "glad he's dead"??
You can leave. The door is over there, next to the cone of shame.
I mean what ip does google want form Apple. You should take a look a jelly bean. Pinch to zoom, tap to zoom, slide to unlock, universal search all have been changed in a way that avoids apple patents. Google does not do anything with android until going over apple patents since ics.
I know some of you don't know this but samsung does not equal android that google created. Samsung android and google android vastly different. Samsung is lazy.
If this goes anywhere, it'll end in a cross-licensing deal with no royalties paid either way--and that would be ultimately what a fan of iOS or Android would want.
As an Apple stock holder and fan, its not what I want.
No way.
I want iOS to be distinctive with Apple's technologies. If Google can just steal or license that freely, how is iOS different than Android and where is the innovation if they don't actually compete?
Necessity is the mother of innovation, and there is no necessity if you can't leverage your innovation to make more money than the next guy. At some point there will no more room for growth in smart phone sales from RIM losing share. Apple is going to have to get that share growth at the expense of Android and vice versa.
I don't see how they do that without distinct and proprietary differences which make iOS much better.
Talented as jobs was at CEO, I'm glad he's dead as his thermonuclear war against android was unrealistic. Hopefully cook is a lot more level headed in dealing with such issues.
Well, if he's not wishing that one of the most iconic, productive, transformative figures of our times is dead, he's already far more level-headed than you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
You're "glad he's dead"??
You can leave. The door is over there, next to the cone of shame.
Just because Google doesn't litigate based on their IP, you honestly, truly believe that Google owns absolutely nothing that Apple wants?
You don't think Google would litigate if i stole their search IP?
Google is a hypocrite. They complain about software patents and IP when it suits their PR needs and to make Android fans swoon. The truth is they own plenty of software patents they would aggressively sue over if Apple did they same as they do to Apple.
As an Apple stock holder and fan, its not what I want.
No way.
I want iOS to be distinctive with Apple's technologies. If Google can just steal or license that freely, how is iOS different than Android and where is the innovation if they don't actually compete?
Necessity is the mother of innovation, and there is no necessity if you can't leverage your innovation to make more money than the next guy. At some point there will no more room for growth in smart phone sales from RIM losing share. Apple is going to have to get that share growth at the expense of Android and vice versa.
I don't see how they do that without distinct and proprietary differences which make iOS much better.
Your points are valid, but I was speaking more to the items that Google does own that they haven't held against Apple, that could possibly detract from iOS and/or Apple products.
Google owns a lot of patents of their own; if both Google and Apple were to sit down and say "here's what we have", both companies would have to change their products pretty dramatically.
As an Apple stock holder and fan, its not what I want.
No way.
I want iOS to be distinctive with Apple's technologies. If Google can just steal or license that freely, how is iOS different than Android and where is the innovation if they don't actually compete?
Necessity is the mother of innovation, and there is no necessity if you can't leverage your innovation to make more money than the next guy. At some point there will no more room for growth in smart phone sales from RIM losing share. Apple is going to have to get that share growth at the expense of Android and vice versa.
I don't see how they do that without distinct and proprietary differences which make iOS much better.
Uber aggressive litigation isn't without its risks either.
This patent, issued on March 16th, 1999 talks about “messaging devices that process messages logically for a user in the context of space and time”. Translated from legalese – it’s about your iPhone being able to display geographically relevant messages when you are at a certain place. E.g. traffic alerts when you are near the congested intersection, ability to schedule reminders when you are approaching your workplace or leaving your home, getting a pop-up to remember to buy some milk when you are in a grocery store, etc;
Patent No. 5,922,047 “Apparatus, method and system for multimedia control and communication”
The ‘047 patent, issued on July 13, 199 is really broad and, according to Motorola, covers such basic device functionality as being able to launch and use any media application, while also being a phone. E.g. tapping on video player icon on iPhone 4S constitutes infringement, because it means that your phone switches to another operating mode (video player) among many (telephone, music player, browser, etc, in response to a first control signal (tapping on a video icon) and, after video player launches, it is controlled via multiple other control signals – e.g tap to Pause/Play, Fast Forward, etc;
Patent No. 6,425,002 “Apparatus and method for handling dispatching messages for various applications of a communication device”
‘002 patent was issued on July 23, 2002 and covers the API for routing incoming and outgoing messages to the correct applications. Motorola thinks that Apple’s Push Notification functionality, allowing your apps to automatically send and receive push messages, is covered by ththis patent and infringes on it.
Patent No. 6,493,673 “Markup language for interactive services and methods thereof”
This patent, issued on Dec. 10, 2002 covers interactive voice services delivered over the internet, and goes after Siri. Motorola does not care much about the artificial intelligence and all other fancy stuff Siri does. According to the patent claims, Motorola has invented the basic interactive dialog process Siri uses. And the way Apple renders XML files to allow you talk to Siri, is a no no without a license. “Siri, set a reminder for 2, tomorrow”, “2PM or 2AM”, “2PM” , “OK, setting reminder for 2PM on Wednesday, Aug. 22nd” . Doesn’t matter how Siri figures out what to ask and what to tell you. Simply by performing this dialog, and using a markup language to do it – Siri infringes. Or at least that’s what Motorola claims.
Patent No. 6,983,370 “System for providing continuity between messaging clients and method therefor”
The ‘370 patent, issued on January 3d, 2006 talks about seamless IM session switching between various devices, and says that all iMessage capable devices are infringing on it. Started your iMessage chat on your MacBook, then continued it on the way to work on your iPhone? Google says that the way Apple does this – by storing your chat data on its servers and then transferring the chat data from MacBook to iPhone – is Moto’s invention. This patent is also part of Motorola’s litigation with Microsoft in U.S.
Patent No. 7,007,064 “Method and apparatus for obtaining and managing wirelessly communicated content”
‘064 patent, issued on Feb 28, 2006 goes after e-mail syncing between your Macs and iOS devices via iCloud. It is a rather narrow patent, and only insists that the way Apple keeps your e-mails in sync, by deleting messages on one of your igadgets when you delete that same message on the other, is an infringing use.
Patent No. 7,383,983 “System and method for managing content between devices in various domains”
This patent covers the ability to pause video or audio playback on your iPad, and then resume playing the content from the same place on a different iDevice.
Those are the 7 Motorola patents in the new suit are they not? Has the ITC ruled on them yet? I honestly don't think they'll get an ban on Apple products based on them, nor do I think Motorola, even with Google's backing will pay the deposit necessary for an injunction.
Those are the 7 Motorola patents in the new suit are they not? Has the ITC ruled on them yet? I honestly don't think they'll get an ban on Apple products based on them, nor do I think Motorola, even with Google's backing will pay the deposit necessary for an injunction.
What's the difference?
The argument is that Apple and Google would cross-license to resolve any issues, those included by the patents mentioned above, but many more as well.
The real point is that both companies have things they each want, and cross-licensing would be one way to resolve that matter, while keeping everything in iOS and Android as it is.
Those are the 7 Motorola patents in the new suit are they not? Has the ITC ruled on them yet? I honestly don't think they'll get an ban on Apple products based on them, nor do I think Motorola, even with Google's backing will pay the deposit necessary for an injunction.
Yes they are and not the ITC has not. Why not? If apple can get an injuction for universal search on a mobile device anything can happen.
Comments
You're "glad he's dead"??
You can leave. The door is over there, next to the cone of shame.
I really can't stand Andy Rubin's face.
Originally Posted by Techstalker
Whats ip does apple own that google wants?
That they wouldn't just steal outright, you mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That they wouldn't just steal outright, you mean?
Who wants a Notification Shade? Let's nick it from El Goog!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That they wouldn't just steal outright, you mean?
I mean what ip does google want form Apple. You should take a look a jelly bean. Pinch to zoom, tap to zoom, slide to unlock, universal search all have been changed in a way that avoids apple patents. Google does not do anything with android until going over apple patents since ics.
I know some of you don't know this but samsung does not equal android that google created. Samsung android and google android vastly different. Samsung is lazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
If this goes anywhere, it'll end in a cross-licensing deal with no royalties paid either way--and that would be ultimately what a fan of iOS or Android would want.
As an Apple stock holder and fan, its not what I want.
No way.
I want iOS to be distinctive with Apple's technologies. If Google can just steal or license that freely, how is iOS different than Android and where is the innovation if they don't actually compete?
Necessity is the mother of innovation, and there is no necessity if you can't leverage your innovation to make more money than the next guy. At some point there will no more room for growth in smart phone sales from RIM losing share. Apple is going to have to get that share growth at the expense of Android and vice versa.
I don't see how they do that without distinct and proprietary differences which make iOS much better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
That would be the best outcome.
Talented as jobs was at CEO, I'm glad he's dead as his thermonuclear war against android was unrealistic. Hopefully cook is a lot more level headed in dealing with such issues.
Well, if he's not wishing that one of the most iconic, productive, transformative figures of our times is dead, he's already far more level-headed than you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
You're "glad he's dead"??
You can leave. The door is over there, next to the cone of shame.
Please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
Just because Google doesn't litigate based on their IP, you honestly, truly believe that Google owns absolutely nothing that Apple wants?
You don't think Google would litigate if i stole their search IP?
Google is a hypocrite. They complain about software patents and IP when it suits their PR needs and to make Android fans swoon. The truth is they own plenty of software patents they would aggressively sue over if Apple did they same as they do to Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
Talented as jobs was at CEO, I'm glad he's dead
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmarcoot
As an Apple stock holder and fan, its not what I want.
No way.
I want iOS to be distinctive with Apple's technologies. If Google can just steal or license that freely, how is iOS different than Android and where is the innovation if they don't actually compete?
Necessity is the mother of innovation, and there is no necessity if you can't leverage your innovation to make more money than the next guy. At some point there will no more room for growth in smart phone sales from RIM losing share. Apple is going to have to get that share growth at the expense of Android and vice versa.
I don't see how they do that without distinct and proprietary differences which make iOS much better.
Your points are valid, but I was speaking more to the items that Google does own that they haven't held against Apple, that could possibly detract from iOS and/or Apple products.
Google owns a lot of patents of their own; if both Google and Apple were to sit down and say "here's what we have", both companies would have to change their products pretty dramatically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
Just because Google doesn't litigate based on their IP, you honestly, truly believe that Google owns absolutely nothing that Apple wants?
Originally Posted by majjo
…I'm glad he's dead…
Leave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmarcoot
Quote break your comment?
Uber aggressive litigation isn't without its risks either.
SOME OF THE THINGS APPLE MIGHT WANT FROM GOOGLE JUST IN CASE
Patent No. 5,883,580 “Geographic-temporal significant messaging”
This patent, issued on March 16th, 1999 talks about “messaging devices that process messages logically for a user in the context of space and time”. Translated from legalese – it’s about your iPhone being able to display geographically relevant messages when you are at a certain place. E.g. traffic alerts when you are near the congested intersection, ability to schedule reminders when you are approaching your workplace or leaving your home, getting a pop-up to remember to buy some milk when you are in a grocery store, etc;
Patent No. 5,922,047 “Apparatus, method and system for multimedia control and communication”
The ‘047 patent, issued on July 13, 199 is really broad and, according to Motorola, covers such basic device functionality as being able to launch and use any media application, while also being a phone. E.g. tapping on video player icon on iPhone 4S constitutes infringement, because it means that your phone switches to another operating mode (video player) among many (telephone, music player, browser, etc
Patent No. 6,425,002 “Apparatus and method for handling dispatching messages for various applications of a communication device”
‘002 patent was issued on July 23, 2002 and covers the API for routing incoming and outgoing messages to the correct applications. Motorola thinks that Apple’s Push Notification functionality, allowing your apps to automatically send and receive push messages, is covered by ththis patent and infringes on it.
Patent No. 6,493,673 “Markup language for interactive services and methods thereof”
This patent, issued on Dec. 10, 2002 covers interactive voice services delivered over the internet, and goes after Siri. Motorola does not care much about the artificial intelligence and all other fancy stuff Siri does. According to the patent claims, Motorola has invented the basic interactive dialog process Siri uses. And the way Apple renders XML files to allow you talk to Siri, is a no no without a license. “Siri, set a reminder for 2, tomorrow”, “2PM or 2AM”, “2PM” , “OK, setting reminder for 2PM on Wednesday, Aug. 22nd” . Doesn’t matter how Siri figures out what to ask and what to tell you. Simply by performing this dialog, and using a markup language to do it – Siri infringes. Or at least that’s what Motorola claims.
Patent No. 6,983,370 “System for providing continuity between messaging clients and method therefor”
The ‘370 patent, issued on January 3d, 2006 talks about seamless IM session switching between various devices, and says that all iMessage capable devices are infringing on it. Started your iMessage chat on your MacBook, then continued it on the way to work on your iPhone? Google says that the way Apple does this – by storing your chat data on its servers and then transferring the chat data from MacBook to iPhone – is Moto’s invention. This patent is also part of Motorola’s litigation with Microsoft in U.S.
Patent No. 7,007,064 “Method and apparatus for obtaining and managing wirelessly communicated content”
‘064 patent, issued on Feb 28, 2006 goes after e-mail syncing between your Macs and iOS devices via iCloud. It is a rather narrow patent, and only insists that the way Apple keeps your e-mails in sync, by deleting messages on one of your igadgets when you delete that same message on the other, is an infringing use.
Patent No. 7,383,983 “System and method for managing content between devices in various domains”
This patent covers the ability to pause video or audio playback on your iPad, and then resume playing the content from the same place on a different iDevice.
Hopefully Apple won't license much away to Google.
Fandroids act as if they have a right to use Apple's patents and innovations on their phones and tablets. Guess what, they don't.
If it were up to me, fandroids and other Apple haters would still be using nokia, blackberrys and other ancient technologies.
Those are the 7 Motorola patents in the new suit are they not? Has the ITC ruled on them yet? I honestly don't think they'll get an ban on Apple products based on them, nor do I think Motorola, even with Google's backing will pay the deposit necessary for an injunction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Hopefully Apple won't license much away to Google.
Fandroids act as if they have a right to use Apple's patents and innovations on their phones and tablets. Guess what, they don't.
If it were up to me, fandroids and other Apple haters would still be using nokia, blackberrys and other ancient technologies.
You should probably look up one post from your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
Those are the 7 Motorola patents in the new suit are they not? Has the ITC ruled on them yet? I honestly don't think they'll get an ban on Apple products based on them, nor do I think Motorola, even with Google's backing will pay the deposit necessary for an injunction.
What's the difference?
The argument is that Apple and Google would cross-license to resolve any issues, those included by the patents mentioned above, but many more as well.
The real point is that both companies have things they each want, and cross-licensing would be one way to resolve that matter, while keeping everything in iOS and Android as it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
Those are the 7 Motorola patents in the new suit are they not? Has the ITC ruled on them yet? I honestly don't think they'll get an ban on Apple products based on them, nor do I think Motorola, even with Google's backing will pay the deposit necessary for an injunction.
Yes they are and not the ITC has not. Why not? If apple can get an injuction for universal search on a mobile device anything can happen.