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.
No, no, I agree with you; cross licensing has been the status quo in the tech industry. Do you think that Apple began talking to google because of this suit?
I just think its unrealisitic to expect motorola being able to ban Apple products with this suit.
Likewise, it is unrealisitic to expect Apple to destroy Android though litigation (ie. Thermonucular war)
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.
Couple reasons:
1. I dont think Google can or is willing to put up the deposit necessary for an injunction
2. I don't think Google wants the backlash in bad PR from banning one of the most popular devices in the world.
3. I expect apple to settle if this case holds merit rather than risk an injunction
No, no, I agree with you; cross licensing has been the status quo in the tech industry. Do you think that Apple began talking to google because of this suit?
I just think its unrealisitic to expect motorola being able to ban Apple products with this suit.
Likewise, it is unrealisitic to expect Apple to destroy Android though litigation (ie. Thermonucular war)
Yeah, we're on the same page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Let them take it to the courts, and we'll see what the outcome is.
The topic at hand is cross-licensing to make agreements to prevent further unnecessary litigation. My comment to you was to show that there are, in fact, rights that Google controls that Apple uses and desires in not only iOS, but OS X, as equally as Apple has control of things Google wants. (Any player wants, really, Microsoft included, who already has licensing deals.)
It just goes to show that despite litigation that has happened and litigation that has not happened, there is a great many items that could be deliberated over, those included in this thread and many more--and it'd be beneficial to Apple, Google, and customers of either company, to reach a compromise.
1. I dont think Google can or is willing to put up the deposit necessary for an injunction
2. I don't think Google wants the backlash in bad PR from banning one of the most popular devices in the world.
3. I expect apple to settle if this case holds merit rather than risk an injunction
1. If it meant the death of android, I think google would
2. Google can play that game "They are trying to kill us, telling us we can't make phones, self defense, we just want to exist in peace, and they wont talk to us" type of rhetoric. Apple has a higher market cap, but as far as brand power, and popularity google is on par. This will be Moto and Google(USA) vs. Apple(USA), not samsung
3. This is what i think will happen. I would prefer the patent office to get its act together and stop giving out patents like candy.
You should retract that part, change it if it is miss-phrased, or leave.
He IS dead, get over it.
And, as a shareholder at that time, I AM glad that he wasn't around long enough to risk all of Apple's success on some crusade against a company with similar power, influence, and financial reserves.
I'm sorry some of you fanbois are offended because I don't subscribe to the jobs was the second coming of Jesus circlejerk, but he was a human that made mistakes. I consider his seething hatred of Android one of them.
And, as a shareholder at that time, I AM glad that he wasn't around long enough to risk all of Apple's success on some crusade against a company with similar power, influence, and financial reserves.
I'm sorry some of you fanbois are offended because I don't subscribe to the jobs was the second coming of Jesus circlejerk, but he was a human that made mistakes. I consider his seething hatred of Android one of them.
The problem is that your comment was in incredibly poor taste. It has nothing to do with fanboyism.
Now you're just trying to justify it because you've been called out on it and you know it was wrong.
Tim Cook: "So Larry, officially, I'm here to work out a deal with Google Android"
Larry Page: "That's great Tim! We took a bit of a beating in that court case so this is good news!"
Tim Cook: "You didn't let me finish Larry, shut up. I said officially as in what the public will hear. They will also hear that we couldn't come to an agreement."
Larry Page: <blink> <blink>
Tim Cook: "It's more just going through the motions Larry. We are actually going to drive all your partners to MS Windows phone 8 because it's different than iOS and it sucks"
Larry Page: <blink> <blink>
Tim Cook: "Android will eventually fall off the face of the earth because nobody will want to face us in court again. Also you'll be glad to hear that we are dropping iAD because we just can't compete with Google Ads"
Larry Page: "Well I guess that's some good news"
Tim Cook: "Not really Larry, as a service to our iOS safari users who are the largest mobile internet group, we are building in an ad block that will be turned on by default so no more ad revenue for you on iOS which is where you make all your money"
Larry Page: <lump emerges at back of pants>
Tim Cook: "Well I should go. I suppose enough time has passed to appear that I'm trying to work with you. See you Larry."
Wow, that was worth the price of admission right there. Do you write for John Stewart?
Who wants a Notification Shade? Let's nick it from El Goog!
"Let's adapt the drop down menu's we invented in 1983 and we won't use persistent icons in our status bar so we don't infringe on Google's patent application."
Sorry but you lose troll, that notification bullshit doesn't fly.
Claims
1. A computer-implemented user notification method, comprising:
displaying, in a status area near a perimeter of a graphical interface for a mobile device, a notification of a recent alert event for the mobile device, wherein the alert event corresponds to a change in status of an application operating on the mobile device or of an account associated with the mobile device;
receiving a selection in the status area by a user of the mobile device; and
in response to the receipt of the selection, displaying, in a central zone of the graphical interface, detail regarding a plurality of alert events for the mobile device, wherein at least some of the plurality of alert events correspond to messages received by the mobile device and the detail includes text from the messages.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the notification is displayed in place of battery and signal elementsin a status bar that comprises the status area of the graphical interface.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the notification comprises text that scrolls across the status bar.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising removing the text from the status bar after scrolling the text, and displaying in the status bar an icon that visually represents an application corresponding to the alert event.
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising aggregating, in the status bar, a plurality of icons that are each visually representative of one or more recently received alert events.
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.
Sounds like you can steal secrets to create a rocket to get to the moon. But once you get there, and don't need a moon rocket anymore, it's all good to modify the design to get to Mars. .
"Let's adapt the drop down menu's we invented in 1983 and we won't use persistent icons in our status bar so we don't infringe on Google's patent application."
Sorry but you lose troll, that notification bullshit doesn't fly.
That doesn't fly, but I bet you believe that the prior art for bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom as well as pinch-to-expand, as covered in Apple vs. Samsung, does?
You either agree that Apple's claims to bounceback and pinch to zoom/expand are invalid, or that the Notification Bar is valid. Which is it?
That doesn't fly, but I bet you believe that the prior art for bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom as well as pinch-to-expand, as covered in Apple vs. Samsung, does?
You either agree that Apple's claims to bounceback and pinch to zoom/expand are invalid, or that the Notification Bar is valid. Which is it?
His approach doesn't work, but the claims are pretty specific.that leaves Apple a lot of leeway to work around the patent.
If death was what it took to halt 'nucular devestation' then I'm glad it happened. Simple as that.
You do realize it's not _literally_ nuclear devastation you're talking about right? But that it is _literally_ the extinguishing of a life you're also talking about? Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?
That doesn't fly, but I bet you believe that the prior art for bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom as well as pinch-to-expand, as covered in Apple vs. Samsung, does?
You either agree that Apple's claims to bounceback and pinch to zoom/expand are invalid, or that the Notification Bar is valid. Which is it?
Apple doesn't use Google's specific methods as outlined in their pending patent application so they aren't infringing in the first place.
Your question is irrelevant.
Samsung and HTC have both been found to have infringed Apple's patents and have either had to make changes to work around them or are facing damages subject to the appeals process.
Comments
No, no, I agree with you; cross licensing has been the status quo in the tech industry. Do you think that Apple began talking to google because of this suit?
I just think its unrealisitic to expect motorola being able to ban Apple products with this suit.
Likewise, it is unrealisitic to expect Apple to destroy Android though litigation (ie. Thermonucular war)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
You should probably look up one post from your own.
Let them take it to the courts, and we'll see what the outcome is.
Couple reasons:
1. I dont think Google can or is willing to put up the deposit necessary for an injunction
2. I don't think Google wants the backlash in bad PR from banning one of the most popular devices in the world.
3. I expect apple to settle if this case holds merit rather than risk an injunction
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
No, no, I agree with you; cross licensing has been the status quo in the tech industry. Do you think that Apple began talking to google because of this suit?
I just think its unrealisitic to expect motorola being able to ban Apple products with this suit.
Likewise, it is unrealisitic to expect Apple to destroy Android though litigation (ie. Thermonucular war)
Yeah, we're on the same page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Let them take it to the courts, and we'll see what the outcome is.
The topic at hand is cross-licensing to make agreements to prevent further unnecessary litigation. My comment to you was to show that there are, in fact, rights that Google controls that Apple uses and desires in not only iOS, but OS X, as equally as Apple has control of things Google wants. (Any player wants, really, Microsoft included, who already has licensing deals.)
It just goes to show that despite litigation that has happened and litigation that has not happened, there is a great many items that could be deliberated over, those included in this thread and many more--and it'd be beneficial to Apple, Google, and customers of either company, to reach a compromise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
Couple reasons:
1. I dont think Google can or is willing to put up the deposit necessary for an injunction
2. I don't think Google wants the backlash in bad PR from banning one of the most popular devices in the world.
3. I expect apple to settle if this case holds merit rather than risk an injunction
All are correct, as well as Google not traditionally wanting to litigate--which may change, given the ever-hostile landscape in tech recently.
It does make me think that cross-licensing agreements are more likely, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
Couple reasons:
1. I dont think Google can or is willing to put up the deposit necessary for an injunction
2. I don't think Google wants the backlash in bad PR from banning one of the most popular devices in the world.
3. I expect apple to settle if this case holds merit rather than risk an injunction
1. If it meant the death of android, I think google would
2. Google can play that game "They are trying to kill us, telling us we can't make phones, self defense, we just want to exist in peace, and they wont talk to us" type of rhetoric. Apple has a higher market cap, but as far as brand power, and popularity google is on par. This will be Moto and Google(USA) vs. Apple(USA), not samsung
3. This is what i think will happen. I would prefer the patent office to get its act together and stop giving out patents like candy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
... I'm glad he's dead ...
Shame on you majjo, shame on you.
You should retract that part, change it if it is miss-phrased, or leave.
He IS dead, get over it.
And, as a shareholder at that time, I AM glad that he wasn't around long enough to risk all of Apple's success on some crusade against a company with similar power, influence, and financial reserves.
I'm sorry some of you fanbois are offended because I don't subscribe to the jobs was the second coming of Jesus circlejerk, but he was a human that made mistakes. I consider his seething hatred of Android one of them.
Hi Larry, it's Tim.
Oh, hi Tim, how are you?
I'm great, how are you?
Well I've been better. You know, we really need to talk about things.
Yeah, that's why I'm calling. I just wanted to say a few things about the whole Samsung situation.
Yeah, what is it?
Well I just want to say go **** yourself Larry. Go **** yourself you lying, thieving son of a b***h.
Ok, bye Tim
Goodbye Larry
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
He IS dead, get over it.
And, as a shareholder at that time, I AM glad that he wasn't around long enough to risk all of Apple's success on some crusade against a company with similar power, influence, and financial reserves.
I'm sorry some of you fanbois are offended because I don't subscribe to the jobs was the second coming of Jesus circlejerk, but he was a human that made mistakes. I consider his seething hatred of Android one of them.
The problem is that your comment was in incredibly poor taste. It has nothing to do with fanboyism.
Now you're just trying to justify it because you've been called out on it and you know it was wrong.
Lame.
Wow, that was worth the price of admission right there. Do you write for John Stewart?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
Who wants a Notification Shade? Let's nick it from El Goog!
"Let's adapt the drop down menu's we invented in 1983 and we won't use persistent icons in our status bar so we don't infringe on Google's patent application."
Sorry but you lose troll, that notification bullshit doesn't fly.
Claims
1. A computer-implemented user notification method, comprising:
displaying, in a status area near a perimeter of a graphical interface for a mobile device, a notification of a recent alert event for the mobile device, wherein the alert event corresponds to a change in status of an application operating on the mobile device or of an account associated with the mobile device;
receiving a selection in the status area by a user of the mobile device; and
in response to the receipt of the selection, displaying, in a central zone of the graphical interface, detail regarding a plurality of alert events for the mobile device, wherein at least some of the plurality of alert events correspond to messages received by the mobile device and the detail includes text from the messages.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the notification is displayed in place of battery and signal elements in a status bar that comprises the status area of the graphical interface.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the notification comprises text that scrolls across the status bar.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising removing the text from the status bar after scrolling the text, and displaying in the status bar an icon that visually represents an application corresponding to the alert event.
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising aggregating, in the status bar, a plurality of icons that are each visually representative of one or more recently received alert events.
...etc
Source
Apple's first use of "drop downs"
Sounds like you can steal secrets to create a rocket to get to the moon. But once you get there, and don't need a moon rocket anymore, it's all good to modify the design to get to Mars. .
If death was what it took to halt 'nucular devestation' then I'm glad it happened. Simple as that.
Let them be offended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
"Let's adapt the drop down menu's we invented in 1983 and we won't use persistent icons in our status bar so we don't infringe on Google's patent application."
Sorry but you lose troll, that notification bullshit doesn't fly.
That doesn't fly, but I bet you believe that the prior art for bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom as well as pinch-to-expand, as covered in Apple vs. Samsung, does?
You either agree that Apple's claims to bounceback and pinch to zoom/expand are invalid, or that the Notification Bar is valid. Which is it?
His approach doesn't work, but the claims are pretty specific.that leaves Apple a lot of leeway to work around the patent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
His approach doesn't work, but the claims are pretty specific.that leaves Apple a lot of leeway to work around the patent.
Yeah, in the same way Google worked/is working around Apple's claims, I imagine.
I do hope they come to a consensus. These types of battles are really just wasting everyone's time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
If death was what it took to halt 'nucular devestation' then I'm glad it happened. Simple as that.
You do realize it's not _literally_ nuclear devastation you're talking about right? But that it is _literally_ the extinguishing of a life you're also talking about? Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
That doesn't fly, but I bet you believe that the prior art for bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom as well as pinch-to-expand, as covered in Apple vs. Samsung, does?
You either agree that Apple's claims to bounceback and pinch to zoom/expand are invalid, or that the Notification Bar is valid. Which is it?
Apple doesn't use Google's specific methods as outlined in their pending patent application so they aren't infringing in the first place.
Your question is irrelevant.
Samsung and HTC have both been found to have infringed Apple's patents and have either had to make changes to work around them or are facing damages subject to the appeals process.