Android docs reveal before iPhone, Google's plan was a Java button phone

1356789

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 175
    chipsychipsy Posts: 287member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kerryb View Post

     

    I remember a moment from last year's Apple vs Samsung when the judge held up an iPad and a Galaxy tab(?) and asked the Samsung lawyers if they could tell which tablet was their client's. They responded that they could not. There is a point to designing a product that takes inspiration from another but a line is crossed when your product is a direct copy or close enough to blur any distinction between the two in regards to consumers. When an artist creates a fake Andy Warhol image by offsetting colors over a photograph image it is not necessarily a copy unless that image was used by Warhol such as the iconic Marylyn Monroe image. Samsung for all purposes has copied Monroe's image and stuck a Samsung label on it. 




    So by your definition vanilla Android (not Touchwiz which was a clear attempt to copy) is not a copy but took some inspiration.

    Btw still find it strange that the lawyers couldn't see the difference, it has a Samsung logo on it :s. Oh well not the first Samsung cock-up ;).

    edit: typo

  • Reply 42 of 175
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,578moderator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Philotech View Post

     

    There's good reason to the fundamental principle that there is no (legal) ownership to ideas. I know the US patent system has its difficulties with this principle because it makes it far too easy to overcome, creating a whole industry of patent trolls and legal abuse.

    But every time I read how Apple stole an idea from Android, or Google from Apple, of X from Y, and how one copied the other, I am getting sick. All progress comes from copying, even what makes mankind unique compared to all other animals is our ability to copy and learn something new from it (I know, some other species have a similar, but reduced ability to do so too).

    So all please get over the conception that using ("copying") and improving upon other people's / companies' ideas is evil.


     

    We get that.  But what is evil, or at least immoral or unethical, is remaining on a company's board when your own company is planning to compete headlong by copying from the company upon whose board you are sitting.

  • Reply 43 of 175
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I've made a similar argument before (not a popular thing to say here :\). If the penalty in business for stealing Apple's tech is a potential slap on the wrist then, from a business standpoint, Samsung made the best choice and others made some of the worst choices. We can say that Samsung has no ethics and assume others did but all we really know is that Samsung is to the Android-based market as Apple is to the handset market. Right or wrong they are kicking everyone else's ass who sells an Android-based devices.

    I'll even go further to say that even if Samsung gets hit with a multi billion dollar fine it will still have made business sense to have gone the unethical route. The companies that did the honorable thing are barely surviving. I'm in no way advocating what Samsung did, but one can't argue with the numbers Samsung has posted earnings wise.

    The other manufacturers need to get their act together and offer some stability in build quality, and product release dates. I truly believe that if they follow that formula they'll be able to gain market share from Samsung, and be able to show some profit.
  • Reply 44 of 175
    philotech wrote: »
    Getting sick again... Of course this invention of the iPhone using a full-screen phone with no keyboard was a great idea. Maybe there were phones (existing or under construction) before it, but totally obviously it was only Apple who made this concept fashionable and provied that it was a viable concept of a phone.
    But still, this is an IDEA, and alleging that such an idea can be "stolen" (in a legal rather than just business ethics sense) has got it WRONG!
    If the iPhone is an idea, please explain to me how I can hold it, feel it, see it, hear it and even taste it were I so inclined.

    Isn't it fair to say that what was patented was a specifically implemented physical manifestation of the ideas, not the idea itself?
  • Reply 45 of 175
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,522member
    We get that.  But what is evil, or at least immoral or unethical, is remaining on a company's board when your own company is planning to compete headlong by copying from the company upon whose board you are sitting.
    For whatever reason Apple (or Mr. Jobs) felt it was more important that Schultz remain on the board, just as Google felt it was more important that Arthur Levinson, also an Apple director, remain on their board. They both resigned their positions at roughly the same time, tho Levinson did stick around a bit longer at Google. Was he stealing information on plans for Android and taking it back to Apple even after Schmidt had already resigned? And what about Bill Campbell? How much was he stealing for Apple? :rolleyes:

    FWIW the government wasn't looking kindly on the sharing of board members at that time so both were going to have to make a choice sooner rather than later even if they had remained "best friends".
    http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ftc-looking-at-shared-directors-at-apple-google/
  • Reply 46 of 175
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,578moderator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Philotech View Post

     

    Good decyphyering of my nick :) and I'm also (apart from being a technophile) a lawyer, albeit no patent lawyer.

     

    I may not know all that much about patent law, but I think your abstract may be a little too short... even in the anglophile culture, at least by legal principle, it's not the ideas that are (should be) protected. The issues are that (i) it's too easy to claim that the patent does not cover the idea / abstract, but a technical application of it, and (ii) prior art seems to be the only relevant counterclaim against the validity of a patent rather than it requiring a minimum amount of threshold of originality (Schöpfungshöhe in German - there isn't even a widely used English technical term for it I think).

     

    So not the idea of a phone without a keyboard is protected, but only the technical method of detecting the touch of a finger could be. But the US patent law system even has difficulties explaining that the concept of subtracting currency amounts from each other and making a balance cannot be patented once someone comes up and draws a graph showing that this is done by a computer in software.


     

    There are indeed elements of patent law that prevent obvious ideas and also ideas that would be lit upon by anyone schooled in the art attempting to address the problem being solved by a submitted invention.  Mueller, in a recent blog post, made a very good argument regarding this with an example of how Apple's scroll bounce-back invention teaches away (it goes against prior accepted means of solving a problem - in this case the problem of indicating that a document end has been reached - by allowing scrolling beyond the end and then bouncing back).  And so the scroll bounce-back invention is considered to be novel and also inventive, so allowable as a patentable invention.

  • Reply 47 of 175
    marskmarsk Posts: 30member

    We need to keep the fact straight, to protect the righteous of history. Google , Samsung and other competitors are trying to imply the idea that they did not copy from iPhone. I'm worried that repetition turns lie to truth. Some people don't know or doesn't care about the fact may buy in their lies.

     

    Apple had spent a lot of hard working efforts to define the new smartphone standard. I hope that can stop Google and Samsung copying from iPhone and put proper justice on those scums!

  • Reply 48 of 175
    philotechphilotech Posts: 106member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    It happens quite a lot in tech. Did you scream bloody murder when TV manufacturers copied Philips flat panel, and wide-screen format? I could make up a slide showing TVs before Philips and after. Was it WRONG for everyone to copy that idea? There's always going to be a leader, and then followers in a paradigm shift. In this case it was Apple, but it's all happened before, and will continue to do so.

    Misunderstanding. I don't think copying is wrong, bur rather the opposite, calling it theft (and bloody murder ;-) ) if people pick up somebody else's brilliant ideas and use it for their own purposes. Read the full post and my previous ones in this thread.

  • Reply 49 of 175
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    I'll even go further to say that even if Samsung gets hit with a multi billion dollar fine it will still have made business sense to have gone the unethical route. The companies that did the honorable thing are barely surviving. I'm in no way advocating what Samsung did, but one can't argue with the numbers Samsung has posted earnings wise.

    The other manufacturers need to get their act together and offer some stability in build quality, and product release dates. I truly believe that if they follow that formula they'll be able to gain market share from Samsung, and be able to show some profit.

    Honestly, I don't care who wins or loses when these giants fight. I don't think it will keep Apple from innovating and they aren't going to go under because of Samsung, and the cost of these lawsuits are a pittance to the wealth of these companies so any product costs or stock valuation will be minimal to me. That's not to say that I wish the laws were changed to make stealing less "legal" but I'd much rather we focus on putting away the people responsible for the 2008 financial crisis and the billions stolen from regular people.
  • Reply 50 of 175
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,578moderator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mwhiteco View Post

     



    If you are who you say your are a lawyer scan your degree and put it up here if you don't then we know you are lying!!!!!


     

    That's going a bit far isn't it?  Why be concerned whether the man is actually a lawyer when you can simply read and respond to his words.  After all, the words are what carry weight; they are either valid arguments or they are not.  

     

    BTW, I'm a high school graduate, and they spelled my name wrong on my diploma.  Go view my posts on patent law and tell me I should be judged on my formal education, or lack thereof.

  • Reply 51 of 175
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    chipsy wrote: »

    The flat screen TV is actually a very good analogy and you're right. The iPhone was an evolution (in some points, a step backwards in other areas) in the smartphone market. This evolution ended up becoming hugely popular so of course it will be picked up by others. But does that mean that Apple is the only one who can make a mulittouch capacitive display smartphone? Other examples, because iRobot made the first Roomba does that mean no other manufacturers can enter that market? And so on...
    When it comes to Android, anyone who has actually used Android (and I mean vanilla Android not Touchwiz), and definitely the early versions, will know that Android is anything but a direct iOS copy. So because Apple made a touchscreen OS no one else can anymore? Touchwiz on the other hand was clearly meant to be as much a iOS look-a-like as possible.

    Absolutely and why Apple has taken them to court.

    Unfortunately, it appears that you can take whatever you want, confuse consumers if you're fast enough, create a "dead-ringer copy" (pun intended) and drag the innovator through the dirt by paying off media outlets and purchase channels to push your copy-cat device.

    THAT is what is so despicable about Samsung.

    THAT is what is so very frustrating for Apple fans and should be looked down upon by any and all a technophile.

    THAT is what is at stake here for future tech gadgets and serious innovation.

    The very demanding profession of engineering is at stake, because you will not be paid much more than those that only reverse engineer your products and science. Your timespan to recoup investment (ROI) is not 1, 2, 5, or even 20 years... it just became about 6 months.

    I personally can't wait for some of the new devices Apple has rumored to actually come to market... especially wearables. At this point everyone "knows" it can't be protected no matter what Apple files in the way of patents, trademarks or copyrights. No matter what those wearables may be or look like, "exact copies" (lookalikes really) will be on the market within 6 months. At this point it wouldn't even surprise me to see a "faux Apple logo" being legally sold and "marketed" from assorted blog and media outlets. The faux logo was the only thing missing from the first Samsung Galaxy packaging and accessories if anyone cares to remember.

    This whole scam is surely far more frustrating for Apple employees and engineers: they are expected... no... demanded to recreate/redefine another device/market every 6 months... or else they are DOOMED! Some of those employees and engineers have a lot of their sweat, tears and hard sacrifice paid in stock options and benefits that are tied to the market well-being of Apple. Who's going to want to do this anymore, when it's easier to skip over to Google or Samsung's new SV spy office and reverse engineer/scan what their colleagues at Apple created ... for the same compensation... maybe more! Former Apple engineers are quite valuable I've heard.

    Software, trade dress, and assorted tech patents and protections aren't ideal at the moment and should be reformed. The powers that be better have something planned to stem the tide of "court sanctioned IP theft", or this is going to be the last straw that broke America's back.

    You've handed manufacturing on a silver platter to Mexico, Latin America and most of all Asia. You allow massive holes in your tax code to allow even Apple to drive a truck with billions through them without recourse. So now you're on the road to allowing massive reverse engineering of your IP to be sold alongside your American innovations for practically nothing, calling into question why anyone would want to study math, physics and engineering.

    In summary, it's not Apple that is doomed. Technology and innovation itself is doomed if this injustice is allowed to proceed in the direction it seems to be heading. You will be "communizing" tech... rather than democratizing it. Is that really what we want?
  • Reply 52 of 175
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Honestly, I don't care who wins or loses when these giants fight. I don't think it will keep Apple from innovating and they aren't going to go under because of Samsung, and the cost of these lawsuits are a pittance to the wealth of these companies so any product costs or stock valuation will be minimal to me. That's not to say that I wish the laws were changed to make stealing less "legal" but I'd much rather we focus on putting away the people responsible for the 2008 financial crisis and the billions stolen from regular people.

    You should care, because the day we're left with only 2-3 choices will be a sad one for us as consumers.
  • Reply 53 of 175
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    You should care, because the day we're left with only 2-3 choices will be a sad one for us as consumers.

    I honestly don't care about the who, what and why so long as technology evolves as fast as possible. If Samsung's anti-compatiive actions affect the overall pace of technology then I certainly care about but since 1) I haven't seen any evidence that it's hurting the pace of technology) and 2) I can't do a damn thing about it I can let it go. I could argue that Samsung's stealing has pushed Apple to innovate faster as a result instead of a bunch of weak vendors fighting over Android scraps. Maybe if WinPhone had a more fair ground to fight on it could do better, but that doesn't mean its innovations are less because of it. This isn't like the IE issue where the internet was stunted for a decade because of MS's anti-competitive actions.
  • Reply 54 of 175
    Two points in an attempt to take it back to the original post (probably fruitless).

    First, the material presented above, showing the dramatic shift in Google's Android development, about the time of Apple's iPhone release, would appear to strongly contradict Hiroshi Locheimer's testimony last week. Specifically where his statements were paraphrased: "He noted that the team of engineers working on the project made a concerted effort to make Android a discrete operating system."

    Second, to those that say that Samsung did not develop Android and they should not be sued, wrong. First, that's wrong. They are benefitting from the use of unlicensed, patented (like it or not) for which no licensing fee was paid. Second, as various documents previously reported by AI show, Samsung blatantly copied (and overlayed on their implementation of Android) UI features (e.g., data detectors, slide to lock) patented by Apple. Google may have developed Android but each manufacturer added it's own code to it.
  • Reply 55 of 175
    philotechphilotech Posts: 106member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post





    If the iPhone is an idea, please explain to me how I can hold it, feel it, see it, hear it and even taste it were I so inclined.



    Isn't it fair to say that what was patented was a specifically implemented physical manifestation of the ideas, not the idea itself?

    Never said that. I said the concept of having a phone that does not have physical number keys is an idea that should not be patentable (and isn't I believe).

    I think there are separate levels being mixed up in the arguement all the time:

     

    1. Was there some kind of copying involved?

    2. Was that copying (a) illegal and/or (b) unethical?

     

    Illegal copying (2a) is restricted to cases where an invention is protected by law against copying (i.e. patented). This should not apply for the majority of copying (e.g. not for ideas, business methods, trivia etc.), but I understand that the scope of patentable matters varies hugely between the jurisdictions and legal traditions.

     

    Unethical copying apparently covers a much wider area of copying, and, depending on your personal view, may well cover adoption of other people's ideas and business methods. In my personal opinion, mankind and society in general relies way too much on copying-improving to call such copying unethical in most cases, but everybody is free to disagree here.

     

    Typical case of (probably) mixing up both levels is one of the earlier posts going "Isn't this blatant theft?", theft seemingly referring to the legal level (i.e. 2a above) on the consequence level, but with regards to the facts / the copying itself referring to the rather broad concept of a phone without physical keyboard, something which - in my view - should never be patentable and therefore does not qualify for a 2a statement but only for a 2b statement, even though I would even disagree with the latter, calling it technical progress by way of inspiration by brilliant ideas.

  • Reply 56 of 175
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,578moderator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    For whatever reason Apple (or Mr. Jobs) felt it was more important that Schultz remain on the board, just as Google felt it was more important that Arthur Levinson, also an Apple director, remain on their board. They both resigned their positions at roughly the same time, tho Levinson did stick around a bit longer at Google. Was he stealing information on plans for Android and taking it back to Apple even after Schmidt had already resigned? And what about Bill Campbell? How much was he stealing for Apple? image



    FWIW the government wasn't looking kindly on the sharing of board members at that time so both were going to have to make a choice sooner rather than later even if they had remained "best friends".

    http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ftc-looking-at-shared-directors-at-apple-google/

     

    Quid pro quo is not an ethical defense.

  • Reply 57 of 175
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,578moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Honestly, I don't care who wins or loses when these giants fight. I don't think it will keep Apple from innovating and they aren't going to go under because of Samsung, and the cost of these lawsuits are a pittance to the wealth of these companies so any product costs or stock valuation will be minimal to me. That's not to say that I wish the laws were changed to make stealing less "legal" but I'd much rather we focus on putting away the people responsible for the 2008 financial crisis and the billions stolen from regular people.

     

    I think a big part of Apple's lawsuits are to illustrate that Apple is an innovator and Samsung, et al, are followers.  This message plays with large customers, like government, education, and business enterprise customers.  Such customers tend to sign up with a vendor (Apple versus Samsung in this case) and stick with that vendor through multiple product cycles.  And such customers care about who innovates and is able to bring leading edge technologies to products without things going all pear shaped in the process.  Apple is defending not just its intellectual property from theft, but also its status as a leading innovator that creates solid products.

  • Reply 58 of 175
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by ukjb View Post

    LG… …prada

     

    Please just stop talking about things you don’t for a second comprehend.

     

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

    You should care, because the day we're left with only 2-3 choices will be a sad one for us as consumers.

     

    You realize that even a single choice isn’t inherently bad… right?

  • Reply 59 of 175
    philotech wrote: »
    Never said that. I said the concept of having a phone that does not have physical number keys is an idea that should not be patentable (and isn't I believe).
    I think there are separate levels being mixed up in the arguement all the time:

    1. Was there some kind of copying involved?
    2. Was that copying (a) illegal and/or (b) unethical?

    Illegal copying (2a) is restricted to cases where an invention is protected by law against copying (i.e. patented). This should not apply for the majority of copying (e.g. not for ideas, business methods, trivia etc.), but I understand that the scope of patentable matters varies hugely between the jurisdictions and legal traditions.

    Unethical copying apparently covers a much wider area of copying, and, depending on your personal view, may well cover adoption of other people's ideas and business methods. In my personal opinion, mankind and society in general relies way too much on copying-improving to call such copying unethical in most cases, but everybody is free to disagree here.

    Typical case of (probably) mixing up both levels is one of the earlier posts going "Isn't this blatant theft?", theft seemingly referring to the legal level (i.e. 2a above) on the consequence level, but with regards to the facts / the copying itself referring to the rather broad concept of a phone without physical keyboard, something which - in my view - should never be patentable and therefore does not qualify for a 2a statement but only for a 2b statement, even though I would even disagree with the latter, calling it technical progress by way of inspiration by brilliant ideas.

    What you just stated is not what I responded to or even questioned. I wouldn't even presume to question it, had that been what you posted. Instead, let me repeat what I responded to and highlight the relevant portion that I questioned.
    philotech wrote: »
    Getting sick again... Of course this invention of the iPhone using a full-screen phone with no keyboard was a great idea. Maybe there were phones (existing or under construction) before it, but totally obviously it was only Apple who made this concept fashionable and provied that it was a viable concept of a phone.
    But still, this is an IDEA, and alleging that such an idea can be "stolen" (in a legal rather than just business ethics sense) has got it WRONG
    Besides being more than an idea, this trial is neither about a patented phone nor an idea. It is about 5 specific patents covering certain specific elements (among many) that make up that phone. To reduce it to the idea of phone as a whole as idea and not patentable misleads (besides the fact that it is also not just an idea).

    In other words, whether you intended to or not, your post reframed the argument in such a way as to distort the original issues.
  • Reply 60 of 175
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,522member
    Quid pro quo is not an ethical defense.

    Ah, so then you're saying if Schmidt was evil or at least unethical in stayin on at Apple for so long then Levinson was also for staying on at Google, and Bill Campbell was evil/unethical going back and forth "advising" both. Fair enough. So why are two unethical people still allowed to serve on Apple's board?
Sign In or Register to comment.