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.
Except Apple has their hand in creating future NFC technologies, so your statement was either exactly as I said or completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread. I'm going with the former for the sake of common sense. I don't believe you'd just throw off-topic nonsense around.
I never said that Apple wasnt an inventor…
Of course not. You said they weren't an inventor… of NFC tech.
And I never said anything about future uses.
Because you claim there can never be NFC tech beyond what exists already. Subtle.
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.
Making the assumption that "it" is "existing tech" is the problem there.
Im done trying to talk with a crazy person who cant stand to be wrong.
The patent only says "may use NFC" for the initial recognition part. This isn't an NFC patent or a patent for NFC communications.
You have to know how to read a patent. You're looking at the abstract and description. The only place that counts, is the claims. And the very first claim starts out with:
1. A method comprising:
• providing a first user prompt on a first electronic device when a near field communication interface of the first electronic device is tapped to a near field communication interface of a second electronic device
In fact, the first ten claims all rely on NFC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
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.
I'm sorry. I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Each standalone claim can of course be invalidated due to prior art or obviousness.
However, I was just wondering what the NFC Forum would think about this patent, since it appears to include methods that they have published (and which phone manufacturers have used for years).
OTOH, Apple's filing dates from 2008, and I'm not sure that the NFC Forum publicly published their ideas before that. (Nokia did sell an NFC phone in 2007, but I don't know if it did file transfers of any sort. Perhaps someone here owned one and can tell us.)
Except Apple has their hand in creating future NFC technologies, so your statement was either exactly as I said or completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread. I'm going with the former for the sake of common sense. I don't believe you'd just throw off-topic nonsense around.
Of course not. You said they weren't an inventor… of NFC tech.
Because you claim there can never be NFC tech beyond what exists already. Subtle.
Making the assumption that "it" is "existing tech" is the problem there.
Try just being right in the first place.
1) Apple isnt an inventor or creator of NFC technology. They are an implementor of NFC technology. They are making use of something that someone else made. Just like they never invented WiFi and BT but they are making use of it. All Apple would be doing is creating new ideas and uses of NFC.
2) There is only one way that NFC can be used from a hardware prospective. What the NFC is used for can be completely different, such as Disney's NFC bracelets to replace tickets or Samsungs use of NFC "tiles" to change settings in the phone based on the "tile" that was tapped or Google Wallet with NFC enabled devices to pay for goods at a register instead of using a credit card or pay for gas at the pump with those keychain fobs.
3) I never said it couldnt exist beyond what is today. I specifically said in one of my last posts that the technology could evolve from what it is today just like BT has gotten better. What is different is how people use it.
4) NFC is an existing technology as it has been used in devices for years now. Again, it is all about how companies choose to interface the hardware with software that makes things different.
No it doesn't.
It may (doesn't mean it always does) initiate a BT connection and data transfer but that connection and data transfer is not part of Android Beam.
Originally posted by Wakefinance
So yes, you're wrong
Originally posted by Chris_CA
Except for the fact I'm not.
Sorry, but you really are wrong on this one ChrisCA.
Android Beam™ now supports large payload transfers over Bluetooth. When you define the data to transfer with either the new setBeamPushUris() method or the new callback interface NfcAdapter.CreateBeamUrisCallback, Android hands off the data transfer to Bluetooth or another alternate transport to achieve faster transfer speeds. This is especially useful for large payloads such as image and audio files and requires no visible pairing between the devices. No additional work is required by your app to take advantage of transfers over Bluetooth.
The setBeamPushUris() method takes an array of Uri objects that specify the data you want to transfer from your app. Alternatively, you can implement the NfcAdapter.CreateBeamUrisCallback interface, which you can specify for your activity by calling setBeamPushUrisCallback().
When using the callback interface, the system calls the interface's createBeamUris() method when the user executes a share with Android Beam so that you can define the URIs to share at share-time. This is useful if the URIs to share might vary depending on the user context within the activity, whereas calling setBeamPushUris() is useful when the URIs to share are unchanging and you can safely define them ahead of time."
That should be enough to put a period on the disagreement.
No it doesn't.
It may (doesn't mean it always does) initiate a BT connection and data transfer but that connection and data transfer is not part of Android Beam.
So yes, you're wrong
Then what exactly is it a part of? You obviously didn't read the link. When I beam a picture to my cousin, the data transfer occurs over Bluetooth because NFC doesn't transfer data of that amount. The notification says “incoming beam" while the data transfers between phones. Incoming beam + required transfer over Bluetooth + link where it states beam uses Bluetooth = beam uses Bluetooth after initiating a connection via NFC.
I think that is where you are getting screwed up. NFC is only a standard, meaning a guideline to follow. It's not a technology.
Think of it like 80211. There's no specific hardware required for it, but the spec dictates requirements to adhere to In order to fit the standard.
NFC is a communication standard spec sheet using RFID spec sheet, and again, RFID Has no specific hardware associated with it either.
NFC only discribed how to initiate a communications link. Everything else each vendor will have to devolop and patent on their own. This is Apples method, with Google and Nokia, MS...... All have their own and patented. Think of it like NFC is the hand shake, and Apple patented their own form of communication for after the hand shake.
There's also an O'bama proposal to require a more careful examination of patent applications to avoid overly-broad patent claims. I think the changes put into effect over the past year, including the one you highlighted, are only a start. There's a rising demand for more.
EDIT: Actually this is fairly big news that I didn't originally see the immediate importance of. The President didn't recommend a legislative change regarding patent claims. He's made it an Executive Order! Well-done sir if the USPTO follows thru as he intends they do.. Here's what the order requires:
"Tightening Functional Claiming. The AIA made important improvements to the examination process and overall patent quality, but stakeholders remain concerned about patents with overly broad claims — particularly in the context of software. The PTO will provide new targeted training to its examiners on scrutiny of functional claims and will, over the next six months develop strategies to improve claim clarity, such as by use of glossaries in patent specifications to assist examiners in the software field."
This has the potential to make a big impact on both the numbers and quality of software patents in particular.
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.
1) NFC isn't inherently insecure. We've been over this before.
For payments, it's far safer than a credit card, for example. A CC's important info can be copied by hand, and there's little or nothing to stop large purchases before you notice it's stolen. OTOH, a clerk can't steal NFC info by eye, and most stores require a PIN entry for NFC if the purchase is over $15 or $20.
For photo/url/contact/map/etc transfers, it's quite handy if you're right next to the person you want to share with. It's the whole point: anonymous easy transfers. (Palm users from the 2000s will remember exchanging apps this way over IR beams.)
2) Wireless charging done nicely is wonderful. Anyone who had it on their Pre with the Palm Touchstone charger can vouch for that. Heck, my son-in-law even had a Touchstone on his car console. No need to use wires or a socket... just lay the phone on the disc. It even knew to go into speaker mode.
Neither of these are new features to smartphones. There's no valid reason to not have them as available options.
There's also an O'bama proposal to require a more careful examination of patent applications to avoid overly-broad patent claims. I think the changes put into effect over the past year, including the one you highlighted, are only a start. There's a rising demand for more.
EDIT: Actually this is fairly big news that I didn't originally see the immediate importance of. The President didn't recommend a legislative change regarding patent claims. He's made it an Executive Order! Well-done sir if the USPTO follows thru as he intends they do.. Here's what the order requires:
"Tightening Functional Claiming. The AIA made important improvements to the examination process and overall patent quality, but stakeholders remain concerned about patents with overly broad claims — particularly in the context of software. The PTO will provide new targeted training to its examiners on scrutiny of functional claims and will, over the next six months develop strategies to improve claim clarity, such as by use of glossaries in patent specifications to assist examiners in the software field."
This has the potential to make a big impact on both the numbers and quality of software patents in particular.
Crushing individual inventors and small businesses who are unable to protect their property against far larger and wealthier corporations is no cause for celebration. "NPEs" are often representatives for these individuals and small businesses. I invite you to read this:
Crushing individual inventors and small businesses who are unable to protect their property against far larger and wealthier corporations is no cause for celebration. "NPEs" are often representatives for these individuals and small businesses. I invite you to read this:
Crushing individual inventors by requiring ALL software patents to be specific?? I know you have to be kidding.
Are you aware that small-medium sized businesses made up 90% of the defendants attacked by NPE's, a.k.a "patent trolls"? How about the the fact that a detailed study from last year shows the mean legal costs to defend themselves came in at $1.75M, and that the mean final settlements came in at $1.3M? No. you're probably not aware of it. No wonder the NPE's target the small guys. They can't afford to do anything but settle in some cases, or worse just shut down altogether.
While the Apples and Googles of the industry can easily afford to defend themselves it's those small businesses you mention that get hurt the most. To prove your case you link a paper from the IEEE, an organization who exists to coordinate and monetize patent policies? Have a read through this one:
Then have a gander at some of the extremes the "trolls" go to and the ridiculous claims they make. Yet you think it's not fair to require software patent claims to be more specific, or perhaps that the true owners of a patent have to be clearly identified? http://boingboing.net/tag/patent-trolls
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
The Google design does seem to be different, but what Samsung is doing now is not. Keep in mind Apple will keep a low profile on what they are working on. A law suit before release would show their hand. Plus the potentially infringing S4 has only been on the market for less than a month.
Comments
Originally Posted by joshuarayer
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.
Except Apple has their hand in creating future NFC technologies, so your statement was either exactly as I said or completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread. I'm going with the former for the sake of common sense. I don't believe you'd just throw off-topic nonsense around.
I never said that Apple wasnt an inventor…
Of course not. You said they weren't an inventor… of NFC tech.
And I never said anything about future uses.
Because you claim there can never be NFC tech beyond what exists already. Subtle.
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.
Making the assumption that "it" is "existing tech" is the problem there.
Im done trying to talk with a crazy person who cant stand to be wrong.
Try just being right in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
The patent only says "may use NFC" for the initial recognition part. This isn't an NFC patent or a patent for NFC communications.
You have to know how to read a patent. You're looking at the abstract and description. The only place that counts, is the claims. And the very first claim starts out with:
1. A method comprising:
• providing a first user prompt on a first electronic device when a near field communication interface of the first electronic device is tapped to a near field communication interface of a second electronic device
In fact, the first ten claims all rely on NFC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
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.
I'm sorry. I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Each standalone claim can of course be invalidated due to prior art or obviousness.
However, I was just wondering what the NFC Forum would think about this patent, since it appears to include methods that they have published (and which phone manufacturers have used for years).
OTOH, Apple's filing dates from 2008, and I'm not sure that the NFC Forum publicly published their ideas before that. (Nokia did sell an NFC phone in 2007, but I don't know if it did file transfers of any sort. Perhaps someone here owned one and can tell us.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Except Apple has their hand in creating future NFC technologies, so your statement was either exactly as I said or completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread. I'm going with the former for the sake of common sense. I don't believe you'd just throw off-topic nonsense around.
Of course not. You said they weren't an inventor… of NFC tech.
Because you claim there can never be NFC tech beyond what exists already. Subtle.
Making the assumption that "it" is "existing tech" is the problem there.
Try just being right in the first place.
1) Apple isnt an inventor or creator of NFC technology. They are an implementor of NFC technology. They are making use of something that someone else made. Just like they never invented WiFi and BT but they are making use of it. All Apple would be doing is creating new ideas and uses of NFC.
2) There is only one way that NFC can be used from a hardware prospective. What the NFC is used for can be completely different, such as Disney's NFC bracelets to replace tickets or Samsungs use of NFC "tiles" to change settings in the phone based on the "tile" that was tapped or Google Wallet with NFC enabled devices to pay for goods at a register instead of using a credit card or pay for gas at the pump with those keychain fobs.
3) I never said it couldnt exist beyond what is today. I specifically said in one of my last posts that the technology could evolve from what it is today just like BT has gotten better. What is different is how people use it.
4) NFC is an existing technology as it has been used in devices for years now. Again, it is all about how companies choose to interface the hardware with software that makes things different.
5) I am. Get over it.
See -> http://developer.android.com/about/versions/android-4.0-highlights.html
It may (doesn't mean it always does or has to) initiate a BT connection and data transfer but that connection and data transfer is not part of Android Beam. Except for the fact I'm not.
Sorry, but you really are wrong on this one ChrisCA.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15343617/nfc-what-is-the-difference-between-s-beam-and-android-beam
Note that NFC did not work exactly the same under ICS as it does in the more recent JB. Perhaps that's where the differing claims and misunderstandings are coming from.
Note too that no less than an Android Team Product Manager states that Android Beam transfers are supported over Bluetooth beginning with Jelly Bean almost a year ago.
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2012/06/introducing-android-41-jelly-bean.html
To quote from the Android 4.1 API guidelines:
"Android Beam
Android Beam™ now supports large payload transfers over Bluetooth. When you define the data to transfer with either the new setBeamPushUris() method or the new callback interface NfcAdapter.CreateBeamUrisCallback, Android hands off the data transfer to Bluetooth or another alternate transport to achieve faster transfer speeds. This is especially useful for large payloads such as image and audio files and requires no visible pairing between the devices. No additional work is required by your app to take advantage of transfers over Bluetooth.
The setBeamPushUris() method takes an array of Uri objects that specify the data you want to transfer from your app. Alternatively, you can implement the NfcAdapter.CreateBeamUrisCallback interface, which you can specify for your activity by calling setBeamPushUrisCallback().
When using the callback interface, the system calls the interface's createBeamUris() method when the user executes a share with Android Beam so that you can define the URIs to share at share-time. This is useful if the URIs to share might vary depending on the user context within the activity, whereas calling setBeamPushUris() is useful when the URIs to share are unchanging and you can safely define them ahead of time."
That should be enough to put a period on the disagreement.
Then what exactly is it a part of? You obviously didn't read the link. When I beam a picture to my cousin, the data transfer occurs over Bluetooth because NFC doesn't transfer data of that amount. The notification says “incoming beam" while the data transfers between phones. Incoming beam + required transfer over Bluetooth + link where it states beam uses Bluetooth = beam uses Bluetooth after initiating a connection via NFC.
Originally Posted by joshuarayer
1) Apple isnt an inventor or creator of NFC technology.
Yeah. They are. And there goes your entire argument.
3) I never said it couldnt exist beyond what is today.
Probably shouldn't have said that in your first post, then.
I specifically said in one of my last posts that the technology could evolve from what it is today just like BT has gotten better.
So it's impossible for a technology to change the way it does things?
4) NFC is an existing technology as it has been used in devices for years now.
Which means it's impossible for the implementation to change in a fundamental way? There is only one way to do "NFC"?
Thanks GatorGuy. I meant 4.1 instead of 4.2 in my first post...going to edit.
I think that is where you are getting screwed up. NFC is only a standard, meaning a guideline to follow. It's not a technology.
Think of it like 80211. There's no specific hardware required for it, but the spec dictates requirements to adhere to In order to fit the standard.
NFC is a communication standard spec sheet using RFID spec sheet, and again, RFID Has no specific hardware associated with it either.
NFC only discribed how to initiate a communications link. Everything else each vendor will have to devolop and patent on their own. This is Apples method, with Google and Nokia, MS...... All have their own and patented. Think of it like NFC is the hand shake, and Apple patented their own form of communication for after the hand shake.
There's also an O'bama proposal to require a more careful examination of patent applications to avoid overly-broad patent claims. I think the changes put into effect over the past year, including the one you highlighted, are only a start. There's a rising demand for more.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/04/fact-sheet-white-house-task-force-high-tech-patent-issues
EDIT: Actually this is fairly big news that I didn't originally see the immediate importance of. The President didn't recommend a legislative change regarding patent claims. He's made it an Executive Order! Well-done sir if the USPTO follows thru as he intends they do.. Here's what the order requires:
"Tightening Functional Claiming. The AIA made important improvements to the examination process and overall patent quality, but stakeholders remain concerned about patents with overly broad claims — particularly in the context of software. The PTO will provide new targeted training to its examiners on scrutiny of functional claims and will, over the next six months develop strategies to improve claim clarity, such as by use of glossaries in patent specifications to assist examiners in the software field."
This has the potential to make a big impact on both the numbers and quality of software patents in particular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
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.
1) NFC isn't inherently insecure. We've been over this before.
For payments, it's far safer than a credit card, for example. A CC's important info can be copied by hand, and there's little or nothing to stop large purchases before you notice it's stolen. OTOH, a clerk can't steal NFC info by eye, and most stores require a PIN entry for NFC if the purchase is over $15 or $20.
For photo/url/contact/map/etc transfers, it's quite handy if you're right next to the person you want to share with. It's the whole point: anonymous easy transfers. (Palm users from the 2000s will remember exchanging apps this way over IR beams.)
2) Wireless charging done nicely is wonderful. Anyone who had it on their Pre with the Palm Touchstone charger can vouch for that. Heck, my son-in-law even had a Touchstone on his car console. No need to use wires or a socket... just lay the phone on the disc. It even knew to go into speaker mode.
Neither of these are new features to smartphones. There's no valid reason to not have them as available options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
There's also an O'bama proposal to require a more careful examination of patent applications to avoid overly-broad patent claims. I think the changes put into effect over the past year, including the one you highlighted, are only a start. There's a rising demand for more.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/04/fact-sheet-white-house-task-force-high-tech-patent-issues
EDIT: Actually this is fairly big news that I didn't originally see the immediate importance of. The President didn't recommend a legislative change regarding patent claims. He's made it an Executive Order! Well-done sir if the USPTO follows thru as he intends they do.. Here's what the order requires:
"Tightening Functional Claiming. The AIA made important improvements to the examination process and overall patent quality, but stakeholders remain concerned about patents with overly broad claims — particularly in the context of software. The PTO will provide new targeted training to its examiners on scrutiny of functional claims and will, over the next six months develop strategies to improve claim clarity, such as by use of glossaries in patent specifications to assist examiners in the software field."
This has the potential to make a big impact on both the numbers and quality of software patents in particular.
Crushing individual inventors and small businesses who are unable to protect their property against far larger and wealthier corporations is no cause for celebration. "NPEs" are often representatives for these individuals and small businesses. I invite you to read this:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/gaming/hooray-for-the-patent-troll
Crushing individual inventors by requiring ALL software patents to be specific?? I know you have to be kidding.
Are you aware that small-medium sized businesses made up 90% of the defendants attacked by NPE's, a.k.a "patent trolls"? How about the the fact that a detailed study from last year shows the mean legal costs to defend themselves came in at $1.75M, and that the mean final settlements came in at $1.3M? No. you're probably not aware of it. No wonder the NPE's target the small guys. They can't afford to do anything but settle in some cases, or worse just shut down altogether.
While the Apples and Googles of the industry can easily afford to defend themselves it's those small businesses you mention that get hurt the most. To prove your case you link a paper from the IEEE, an organization who exists to coordinate and monetize patent policies? Have a read through this one:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2091210
Then have a gander at some of the extremes the "trolls" go to and the ridiculous claims they make. Yet you think it's not fair to require software patent claims to be more specific, or perhaps that the true owners of a patent have to be clearly identified?
http://boingboing.net/tag/patent-trolls
Would lack of "specificity" invalidate patents and patent applications? Who gets to define how "specific" a patent must be?
If that is seriously a requirement, I'm now thinking that word alone will cause this presidential decree to end up in the courts for decades.
I'll read your link later.
Care to tell us where? Apple isn't even part of the NFC forum members...
http://www.nfc-forum.org/member_companies/
The Google design does seem to be different, but what Samsung is doing now is not. Keep in mind Apple will keep a low profile on what they are working on. A law suit before release would show their hand. Plus the potentially infringing S4 has only been on the market for less than a month.