So, Apple files for a patent in 2009, Google implements a more limited but different implementation of Apple's idea in 2011, then Samsung decides Apple's way is better so they just copy their way of doing it knowing that it will take years to fight it. That is a big draw back of our patent system. Unless you wait until the last second to file, your ideas are available to be scanned and implemented by your competitors. in other fields its not as bad but in phones it sucks because some change their models every 4 -6 months, so the phone is at time off the market before it can even get to trial.
So why didn't they just... you know... release it in 2009? or 2010, or 2011, or 2012, or 2013, or ever.
1. 2013 isn't over yet
2. NFC was not mature yet. Possibly still isn't. And Apple isn't known for jumping in while things are vastly up in the air, like which flavor is going to come out dominate
(Edit: and yet it seems to include the idea as one claim, extending it to send all the files open on a "plurality of apps". Wonder what the NFC creators will think of this.)
You, who goes around implying you are an IP legal expert, knows that one claim does not a patent violation make.
Patents often have a first and even second claim because on the general tech of the matter, to set the stage. Then the more specific ones for that person/company's idea. Which is why a single claim does not a violation make.
Remember you are looking for tech or at least patents prior to when this was first published in 2009. Even better are things prior to the filing 2008. Remember to be specific with details
So, Apple files for a patent in 2009, Google implements a more limited but different implementation of Apple's idea in 2011, then Samsung decides Apple's way is better so they just copy their way of doing it knowing that it will take years to fight it.
Or they are using different tech which Apple already determined was different and thus haven't sued, given they have had this patent for some 3 yrs. or the companies licensed the tech from Apple in a shocking move since we know they never do anything like that
Didn't Phil Schiller say that both NFC and Wireless charging are stupid and they would never do anything with it? Or something along those lines? If that is the case, why is Apple getting patents on a technology they want nothing to do with?
Also, kinda off topic but why can companies get patents that utilize technology they didnt even create or have a hand in creating/determining specs for?
Remember you are looking for tech or at least patents prior to when this was first published in 2009. Even better are things prior to the filing 2008. Remember to be specific with details
Didn't Phil Schiller say that both NFC and Wireless charging are stupid and they would never do anything with it?
No one (at Apple, at least) would be dumb enough to say that about any tech until they'd done their own work on it. Both NFC and wireless charging are gigantic revolutions in their individual rights. They're the future of not only the tech industry, but for the worldwide economy AND every single device that uses electricity, respectively.
NFC as it is will not be that revolution. It's horrible and wrong. It's just not integrated in the right way.
Wireless charging as it is will not be that revolution. It's horrible and wrong. Inductive charging is wrong.
Also, kinda off topic but why can companies get patents that utilize technology they didnt even create or have a hand in creating/determining specs for?
Because… they can. And why are you pretending this is the case for Apple? Who are you to determine what "specs" are? The "specs" of the current crop of "NFC" crap? YEAH, THAT'S WORKING OUT WELL FOR THEM.
Because… they can. And why are you pretending this is the case for Apple? Who are you to determine what "specs" are? The "specs" of the current crop of "NFC" crap? YEAH, THAT'S WORKING OUT WELL FOR THEM.
Dude you read way too much into what people say and I never said I was the person to determine what specs are. Certain companies are "inventors" of technology that everyone uses. And the specs for certain technology are written in stone for how it works. You cant call something Bluetooth if it has to be wired into a device in order to make a data connection.
And here is the link of Schiller saying that wireless charging is basically not worth it because it is still something that has to be plugged-in in order to work.
I'm thinking that since they already have an exactly similar patent from quite a while ago that uses Bluetooth instead of NFC for the original setup, that this service can use NFC or Bluetooth interchangeably. It wouldn't be much of a solution otherwise. They'd have to tell anyone who wanted to transfer their files to a Mac to buy a new Mac and it wouldn't work with Windows machines at all.
This patent strikes me as a rush re-issue of something they've been talking about for years, with the single addition of NFC technology. It's possible that the only reason to include NFC now, is to make it Android compatible, or at least compatible with hardware that has gone the NFC route instead of Apple's (preferred) Bluetooth solution.
Maybe, but bluetooth doesn't work by proximity tap like that does it? My current bluetooth devices work all the way halfway across my apartment, and I wouldn't want to set off a file transfer just by going into the same room as my Mac, there would need to be a different initialisation. I suppose they could sense a tap using the accelerometer on the phone, but again there's no counterpart on the Mac. If the initialisation is via UI on the screen then AirDrop would seem to do the same thing, and be better for the task, as wi-fi is so much faster than bluetooth.
Can see this being occasionally useful on iOS, but the mention of the Mac has me a bit confused.
Didn't Phil Schiller say that both NFC and Wireless charging are stupid and they would never do anything with it? Or something along those lines? If that is the case, why is Apple getting patents on a technology they want nothing to do with?
Also, kinda off topic but why can companies get patents that utilize technology they didnt even create or have a hand in creating/determining specs for?
No.
Apple has said in the past that NFC is "insecure" (it is), and that wireless charging still requires the wireless charger to be plugged into the wall anyway (it does). These are both good, valid reasons not to move forward with those technologies or to move forward carefully.
You're gonna lose this argument. I use it all the time. It uses bluetooth. I am positive.
I can't lose the argument because there isn't one. You simply are incorrect.
Nowhere does what you linked to say the request isn't initiated by NFC and completed using bluetooth.
So you missed, "This interaction provides an easier way to send data than other wireless technologies like Bluetooth, because with NFC, no manual device discovery or pairing is required."
"<span style="color:rgb(68,68,68);font-family:Roboto, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:25px;">Just touch two NFC-enabled Android devices back-to-back, then tap to beam whatever's on the screen to your friend. Instantly pair your Android phone or tablet to Bluetooth devices like headsets or speakers that support the Simple Secure Pairing standard by just tapping them together"</span>
Notice there is a period between beaming what is on your screen and pairing a Bluetooth device
Pairing Bluetooth devices has nothing to do transferring data over NFC or Android Beam.
The tap initiates an NFC message which then triggers the Bluetooth pairing with headphones/speakers.
Certain companies are "inventors" of technology that everyone uses.
And you're claiming Apple isn't one of them.
And the specs for certain technology are written in stone for how it works. You cant call something Bluetooth if it has to be wired into a device in order to make a data connection.
"NFC" isn't a "certain technology". It's an acronym.
And here is the link of Schiller saying that wireless charging is basically not worth it because it is still something that has to be plugged-in in order to work.
RIGHT. Because it's INDUCTIVE. But actual wireless charging IS the future of everything.
And NFC isnt crap as far as Disney is concerned considering it is using it now to get people into parks, buy food, etc instead of using tickets.
The system is their system. It's internal; not scalable.
"NFC" isn't a "certain technology". It's an acronym.
RIGHT. Because it's INDUCTIVE. But actual wireless charging IS the future of everything.
The system is their system. It's internal; not scalable.
1) I never said Apple wasnt one of them. In fact I never mentioned one specifically nor did I say that Apple wasnt an inventor. Again you are making stuff up and reading into things that I did not say.
2) Yes it is short for Near Field Communication. A separate and unique technology built off of RFID.
3) Ok. I look forward to the day that true wireless charging comes out.
4) It is still a good use of NFC technology that isnt "crap". I dont understand the point you were trying to make.
2) Yes it is short for Near Field Communication. A separate and unique technology built off of RFID.
Which is also an acronym. Not a specific technology. My stars.
3) Ok. I look forward to the day that true wireless charging comes out.
So do I.
4) It is still a good use of NFC technology that isnt "crap". I dont understand the point you were trying to make.
It's not scalable, it's not universal, it's not accepted… What do you mean "what point"? Your entire point has been about standards; why wouldn't I be talking about a standard in reply?
Which is also an acronym. Not a specific technology. My stars.
So do I.
It's not scalable, it's not universal, it's not accepted… What do you mean "what point"? Your entire point has been about standards; why wouldn't I be talking about a standard in reply?
1) Quote me on where I specifically said Apple was not an inventor. You cant because I never said that.
And the rest Im not even going to bother trying to argue with a crazy person.
So why didn't they just... you know... release it in 2009? or 2010, or 2011, or 2012, or 2013, or ever.
Because now they can use it as a feature to get people to upgrade to either a new device or new OS.
I think the idea of device tapping is lame. They can just do it the same way as AirDrop and use wifi-direct for fast speeds. Bluetooth is far too slow, devices have 802.11n now.
You can just be in a meeting, two or more people tap on an icon to transfer files, the sender initiates the transfer and they all agree to receive it. Fast, no stupid bumping and allows multiple recipients, even multiple devices. You can't do anything useful bumping a Galaxy Whatever up against a laptop. You could do your iWork presentation or large Garageband masterpiece on the sofa and just send direct to your desktop when you are done without figuring out how to go through email, iCloud or iTunes.
It can even be used in education at all levels. The teacher can have an iPad with notes on it and they can setup a session at the beginning of the class and send the notes out to the students. Android students are going to fail anyway so it doesn't matter that they don't get the notes or they can get them from the web.
1) Quote me on where I specifically said Apple was not an inventor. You cant because I never said that.
Right here:
Originally Posted by joshuarayer
…why can companies get patents that utilize technology they didn't even create or have a hand in creating/determining specs for?
Claiming both that NFC is a "specific technology" AND that not only are there are "set specs" for it but that no future differences from said specifications could exist.
Originally Posted by joshuarayer
Certain companies are "inventors" of technology that everyone uses. And the specs for certain technology are written in stone for how it works.
And then here, one would imagine that Apple, being the inventor of this methodology of NFC, is one of the aforementioned "inventors", except you magically don't think so because, again, "NFC" the "technology" as it exists already is the "only" possibly way it can be.
You're good, but not good enough. I give it seven out of ten, but I had to take points off for the stupid act where I had to spell out your lies.
I can't lose the argument because there isn't one. You simply are incorrect.
So you missed, "This interaction provides an easier way to send data than other wireless technologies like Bluetooth, because with NFC, no manual device discovery or pairing is required."
Notice there is a period between beaming what is on your screen and pairing a Bluetooth device
Pairing Bluetooth devices has nothing to do transferring data over NFC or Android Beam.
The tap initiates an NFC message which then triggers the Bluetooth pairing with headphones/speakers.
As of 4.1, stock Android Beam transfers data over Bluetooth unless the data is small enough for transfer over NFC. Samsung's S Beam establishes a WiFi Direct connection. So yes, you're wrong.
1) Quote me on where I specifically said Apple was not an inventor. You cant because I never said that.
Right here:
Originally Posted by joshuarayer
…why can companies get patents that utilize technology they didn't even create or have a hand in creating/determining specs for?
Claiming both that NFC is a "specific technology" AND that not only are there are "set specs" for it but that no future differences from said specifications could exist.
Originally Posted by joshuarayer
Certain companies are "inventors" of technology that everyone uses. And the specs for certain technology are written in stone for how it works.
And then here, one would imagine that Apple, being the inventor of this methodology of NFC, is one of the aforementioned "inventors", except you magically don't think so because, again, "NFC" the "technology" as it exists already is the "only" possibly way it can be.
You're good, but not good enough. I give it seven out of ten, but I had to take points off for the stupid act where I had to spell out your lies.
Again, you are reading into something I did not say and making stuff up. Even in your "proof" I still never even said "Apple". That was a generalization asking how companies in general, not referring to Apple explicitly, can get patents based on a technology they did not have any hand in creating. I never said that Apple wasnt an inventor and you are just making a fool of yourself to anyone reading this thread.
And I never said anything about future uses. Technology can grow and evolve. Like how Bluetooth has evolved with the latest standard to use less power and have higher data transfers. But as it is right now, that is the current spec. As far as the NFC technology is concerned, Apple is simply using it(in the patent) as a method for initiating a data transfer between two devices and that the transfer itself may take place using something else, like BT or WiFi.
Im done trying to talk with a crazy person who cant stand to be wrong.
Comments
2. NFC was not mature yet. Possibly still isn't. And Apple isn't known for jumping in while things are vastly up in the air, like which flavor is going to come out dominate
You, who goes around implying you are an IP legal expert, knows that one claim does not a patent violation make.
Patents often have a first and even second claim because on the general tech of the matter, to set the stage. Then the more specific ones for that person/company's idea. Which is why a single claim does not a violation make.
And what prior art is that.
Remember you are looking for tech or at least patents prior to when this was first published in 2009. Even better are things prior to the filing 2008. Remember to be specific with details
Or they are using different tech which Apple already determined was different and thus haven't sued, given they have had this patent for some 3 yrs. or the companies licensed the tech from Apple in a shocking move since we know they never do anything like that
Didn't Phil Schiller say that both NFC and Wireless charging are stupid and they would never do anything with it? Or something along those lines? If that is the case, why is Apple getting patents on a technology they want nothing to do with?
Also, kinda off topic but why can companies get patents that utilize technology they didnt even create or have a hand in creating/determining specs for?
I don't know if this would help or not. I haven't used it.
http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2012/08/improving-google-patents-with-european.html
Originally Posted by joshuarayer
Didn't Phil Schiller say that both NFC and Wireless charging are stupid and they would never do anything with it?
No one (at Apple, at least) would be dumb enough to say that about any tech until they'd done their own work on it. Both NFC and wireless charging are gigantic revolutions in their individual rights. They're the future of not only the tech industry, but for the worldwide economy AND every single device that uses electricity, respectively.
NFC as it is will not be that revolution. It's horrible and wrong. It's just not integrated in the right way.
Wireless charging as it is will not be that revolution. It's horrible and wrong. Inductive charging is wrong.
Also, kinda off topic but why can companies get patents that utilize technology they didnt even create or have a hand in creating/determining specs for?
Because… they can. And why are you pretending this is the case for Apple? Who are you to determine what "specs" are? The "specs" of the current crop of "NFC" crap? YEAH, THAT'S WORKING OUT WELL FOR THEM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Because… they can. And why are you pretending this is the case for Apple? Who are you to determine what "specs" are? The "specs" of the current crop of "NFC" crap? YEAH, THAT'S WORKING OUT WELL FOR THEM.
Dude you read way too much into what people say and I never said I was the person to determine what specs are. Certain companies are "inventors" of technology that everyone uses. And the specs for certain technology are written in stone for how it works. You cant call something Bluetooth if it has to be wired into a device in order to make a data connection.
And here is the link of Schiller saying that wireless charging is basically not worth it because it is still something that has to be plugged-in in order to work.
http://allthingsd.com/20120912/interview-phil-schiller-on-why-the-iphone-5-has-a-new-connector-but-not-nfc-or-wireless-charging/
Edit: And NFC isnt crap as far as Disney is concerned considering it is using it now to get people into parks, buy food, etc instead of using tickets.
http://www.pymnts.com/briefing-room/mobile/nfc/Disney-Is-Where-NFC-Dreams-Come-True/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I'm thinking that since they already have an exactly similar patent from quite a while ago that uses Bluetooth instead of NFC for the original setup, that this service can use NFC or Bluetooth interchangeably. It wouldn't be much of a solution otherwise. They'd have to tell anyone who wanted to transfer their files to a Mac to buy a new Mac and it wouldn't work with Windows machines at all.
This patent strikes me as a rush re-issue of something they've been talking about for years, with the single addition of NFC technology. It's possible that the only reason to include NFC now, is to make it Android compatible, or at least compatible with hardware that has gone the NFC route instead of Apple's (preferred) Bluetooth solution.
Maybe, but bluetooth doesn't work by proximity tap like that does it? My current bluetooth devices work all the way halfway across my apartment, and I wouldn't want to set off a file transfer just by going into the same room as my Mac, there would need to be a different initialisation. I suppose they could sense a tap using the accelerometer on the phone, but again there's no counterpart on the Mac. If the initialisation is via UI on the screen then AirDrop would seem to do the same thing, and be better for the task, as wi-fi is so much faster than bluetooth.
Can see this being occasionally useful on iOS, but the mention of the Mac has me a bit confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuarayer
Didn't Phil Schiller say that both NFC and Wireless charging are stupid and they would never do anything with it? Or something along those lines? If that is the case, why is Apple getting patents on a technology they want nothing to do with?
Also, kinda off topic but why can companies get patents that utilize technology they didnt even create or have a hand in creating/determining specs for?
No.
Apple has said in the past that NFC is "insecure" (it is), and that wireless charging still requires the wireless charger to be plugged into the wall anyway (it does). These are both good, valid reasons not to move forward with those technologies or to move forward carefully.
Notice there is a period between beaming what is on your screen and pairing a Bluetooth device
Pairing Bluetooth devices has nothing to do transferring data over NFC or Android Beam.
The tap initiates an NFC message which then triggers the Bluetooth pairing with headphones/speakers.
Originally Posted by joshuarayer
Certain companies are "inventors" of technology that everyone uses.
And you're claiming Apple isn't one of them.
And the specs for certain technology are written in stone for how it works. You cant call something Bluetooth if it has to be wired into a device in order to make a data connection.
"NFC" isn't a "certain technology". It's an acronym.
And here is the link of Schiller saying that wireless charging is basically not worth it because it is still something that has to be plugged-in in order to work.
RIGHT. Because it's INDUCTIVE. But actual wireless charging IS the future of everything.
And NFC isnt crap as far as Disney is concerned considering it is using it now to get people into parks, buy food, etc instead of using tickets.
The system is their system. It's internal; not scalable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And you're claiming Apple isn't one of them.
"NFC" isn't a "certain technology". It's an acronym.
RIGHT. Because it's INDUCTIVE. But actual wireless charging IS the future of everything.
The system is their system. It's internal; not scalable.
1) I never said Apple wasnt one of them. In fact I never mentioned one specifically nor did I say that Apple wasnt an inventor. Again you are making stuff up and reading into things that I did not say.
2) Yes it is short for Near Field Communication. A separate and unique technology built off of RFID.
3) Ok. I look forward to the day that true wireless charging comes out.
4) It is still a good use of NFC technology that isnt "crap". I dont understand the point you were trying to make.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_field_communication
Originally Posted by joshuarayer
1) I never said Apple wasnt one of them.
Yeah, you did, thanks.
2) Yes it is short for Near Field Communication. A separate and unique technology built off of RFID.
Which is also an acronym. Not a specific technology. My stars.
3) Ok. I look forward to the day that true wireless charging comes out.
So do I.
4) It is still a good use of NFC technology that isnt "crap". I dont understand the point you were trying to make.
It's not scalable, it's not universal, it's not accepted… What do you mean "what point"? Your entire point has been about standards; why wouldn't I be talking about a standard in reply?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yeah, you did, thanks.
Which is also an acronym. Not a specific technology. My stars.
So do I.
It's not scalable, it's not universal, it's not accepted… What do you mean "what point"? Your entire point has been about standards; why wouldn't I be talking about a standard in reply?
1) Quote me on where I specifically said Apple was not an inventor. You cant because I never said that.
And the rest Im not even going to bother trying to argue with a crazy person.
Because now they can use it as a feature to get people to upgrade to either a new device or new OS.
I think the idea of device tapping is lame. They can just do it the same way as AirDrop and use wifi-direct for fast speeds. Bluetooth is far too slow, devices have 802.11n now.
You can just be in a meeting, two or more people tap on an icon to transfer files, the sender initiates the transfer and they all agree to receive it. Fast, no stupid bumping and allows multiple recipients, even multiple devices. You can't do anything useful bumping a Galaxy Whatever up against a laptop. You could do your iWork presentation or large Garageband masterpiece on the sofa and just send direct to your desktop when you are done without figuring out how to go through email, iCloud or iTunes.
It can even be used in education at all levels. The teacher can have an iPad with notes on it and they can setup a session at the beginning of the class and send the notes out to the students. Android students are going to fail anyway so it doesn't matter that they don't get the notes or they can get them from the web.
Originally Posted by joshuarayer
1) Quote me on where I specifically said Apple was not an inventor. You cant because I never said that.
Right here:
Originally Posted by joshuarayer
…why can companies get patents that utilize technology they didn't even create or have a hand in creating/determining specs for?
Claiming both that NFC is a "specific technology" AND that not only are there are "set specs" for it but that no future differences from said specifications could exist.
Originally Posted by joshuarayer
Certain companies are "inventors" of technology that everyone uses. And the specs for certain technology are written in stone for how it works.
And then here, one would imagine that Apple, being the inventor of this methodology of NFC, is one of the aforementioned "inventors", except you magically don't think so because, again, "NFC" the "technology" as it exists already is the "only" possibly way it can be.
You're good, but not good enough. I give it seven out of ten, but I had to take points off for the stupid act where I had to spell out your lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
I can't lose the argument because there isn't one. You simply are incorrect.
So you missed, "This interaction provides an easier way to send data than other wireless technologies like Bluetooth, because with NFC, no manual device discovery or pairing is required."
Notice there is a period between beaming what is on your screen and pairing a Bluetooth device
Pairing Bluetooth devices has nothing to do transferring data over NFC or Android Beam.
The tap initiates an NFC message which then triggers the Bluetooth pairing with headphones/speakers.
As of 4.1, stock Android Beam transfers data over Bluetooth unless the data is small enough for transfer over NFC. Samsung's S Beam establishes a WiFi Direct connection. So yes, you're wrong.
http://android.stackexchange.com/questions/26509/whats-the-difference-between-android-beam-vs-s-beam
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by joshuarayer
1) Quote me on where I specifically said Apple was not an inventor. You cant because I never said that.
Right here:
Originally Posted by joshuarayer
…why can companies get patents that utilize technology they didn't even create or have a hand in creating/determining specs for?
Claiming both that NFC is a "specific technology" AND that not only are there are "set specs" for it but that no future differences from said specifications could exist.
Originally Posted by joshuarayer
Certain companies are "inventors" of technology that everyone uses. And the specs for certain technology are written in stone for how it works.
And then here, one would imagine that Apple, being the inventor of this methodology of NFC, is one of the aforementioned "inventors", except you magically don't think so because, again, "NFC" the "technology" as it exists already is the "only" possibly way it can be.
You're good, but not good enough. I give it seven out of ten, but I had to take points off for the stupid act where I had to spell out your lies.
Again, you are reading into something I did not say and making stuff up. Even in your "proof" I still never even said "Apple". That was a generalization asking how companies in general, not referring to Apple explicitly, can get patents based on a technology they did not have any hand in creating. I never said that Apple wasnt an inventor and you are just making a fool of yourself to anyone reading this thread.
And I never said anything about future uses. Technology can grow and evolve. Like how Bluetooth has evolved with the latest standard to use less power and have higher data transfers. But as it is right now, that is the current spec. As far as the NFC technology is concerned, Apple is simply using it(in the patent) as a method for initiating a data transfer between two devices and that the transfer itself may take place using something else, like BT or WiFi.
Im done trying to talk with a crazy person who cant stand to be wrong.