How many times have illegal things happened to them and they’ve been forced to listen?
So it’s legal for a judge to say, “You know what? You’ve murdered too many people. Let’s only try you for 5 out of the 20 murders,” now?
Happens all the time. We had a case here where the trial was too large to manage because of the evidence and number of murder victims. They split the case up and grouped the victims together in such a way as to make things more manageable.
I've mentioned this before - the issue isn't restricting the number of patents in a case - it's the time it takes to get to trial. In time-sensitive IP cases they need a special court where you can fast track the case while IP is still relevant. If this happened, then Apple could have already tried 20 or more patents in several smaller cases long ago. And Samsung wouldn't be able to game the system.
Linkify is not some "analyzer server" that detects context; it's merely a library of search-and-replace functions that have to be called explicitly by the developer on a body of text, and it's the developer's job to specify what patterns to search for. Thus it's not essentially different from any other search and replace utility out there; any programmer could reproduce its functionality independently in a couple lines of Java or by piping the contents of a textview through some text processing utility like awk or sed. The addLinks() function is in fact implemented directly using Java's regex matching facilities (http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/ext/com.google.android/android/2.0_r1/android/text/util/Linkify.java).
Given that a patent covers a specific and novel method for achieving a result, and not the result itself, is it at all obvious that such a general and well-known technique (search and replace) infringes?
Linkify is exactly what Apple describes in their patent, an API to make structured matches on an open data set. Yes it is quite vague, as it should be since the patent is for pattern matching. I don't find their vagueness surprising, the patent was granted in 1996 and it makes sense to leave it open for future uses. Who knows what type of data we may need to link in the future. Originally they described addresses as the primary use, that's not to say it can't be used for other things down the line. Their patent covers their current implementation and future ones.
Calling either implementation nothing more than search/replace is a bit of a stretch isn't it? We both know regular expressions are more than that.
When Rubin worked at Apple they had around 14,000 employees. Rubin reported directly to the same 2 engineers that developed this patent, which was under development at the exact same time Rubin worked at Apple. What are the odds out of that many employees that he would end up working with these two? And what are the odds that while at Apple he never saw anything that would make him think "that's a great solution to xx problem" and later use it "even unintentionally"?
I can not say what Rubin may have saw in 89 to 92 or whether he actually report to people who have knowledge to future product ideas, But he was a manufacturing engineer which means is was not in Cupertino where all the future tech from apple was being done. He was most likely in the factory in Fremont prior to it being shut down, and was then assign to the factory in Colorado Springs. Most of the future Apple Tech was done in a small group in Cupertinon and unless you were on those development teams you did not know about it especially a manufacturing engineer, he was working on test systems and fixtures not product features.
I can not say what Rubin may have saw in 89 to 92 or whether he actually report to people who have knowledge to future product ideas, But he was a manufacturing engineer which means is was not in Cupertino where all the future tech from apple was being done. He was most likely in the factory in Fremont prior to it being shut down, and was then assign to the factory in Colorado Springs. Most of the future Apple Tech was done in a small group in Cupertinon and unless you were on those development teams you did not know about it especially a manufacturing engineer, he was working on test systems and fixtures not product features.
How do you know where Rubin actually worked?
"In reality, as the evidence revealed at the hearing, Mr. Rubin began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed."
That quote is from Apples lawyers. I don't know where Rubin worked, but Apple is making some specific claims about who Rubin worked with and at what time.
"In reality, as the evidence revealed at the hearing, Mr. Rubin began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed."
That quote is from Apples lawyers. I don't know where Rubin worked, but Apple is making some specific claims about who Rubin worked with and at what time.
...yet very unspecific as to what he worked on. If it was the Real-time API Apple's counsel would have said so, don't you agree?
^This. As an example of how software patents were not popular or considered by some as a prerequisite for innovation until recently, open any algorithms textbook, such as CLRS, and count how many of the algorithms and data structures described there are patented. In terms of impact on the software industry, slide-to-unlock has nothing on those inventions. They were all widely recognized breakthroughs and are used by all modern software.
The most significant software systems to be invented were in fact never patented. I could cite examples like Unix, Apache, or LLVM, but instead of reproducing here an extensive list, I invite anyone to take a look at the full list of recipients for the ACM Software Systems award (http://awards.acm.org/software_system/).
And ^this is exactly where most software engineers can't see the forest from the trees.
If you reduce any product down to it's smallest parts, it becomes very fuzzy what is actually protectable by a manufacturer. However, there certainly are things which make a product "unique" in the minds of the people who use them. They are small details, but they are important.
Most of the time it's in the design details -- the way a particular car body is shaped, for example. So that's why Apple patents design details like slide-to-lock and bounce scrolling instead of the algorithms on which they are built. It's a straw-man argument to reduce these design details down to the algorithms and then state that they can't be patented because the algorithms were invented and published before. No one notices the algorithms, but they do notice how they are realized into tangible, unique features. It's not a trivial thing to turn a simple image processing algorithm into a unique design feature which sets your product apart from others.
Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that because those weren't patented, neither should slide to unlock?
You have to remind yourself of a few facts. Some developers wish to open source their apps, some don't. Just because one does, and you or I may feel it's more valuable than another, doesn't mean every developer is required to. It's up to the author to make that choice. For the apps you listed their intentions are obvious from their accompanying licenses.
It also has a lot to do with competition. Everything you listed is free, why would they need the protection of a patent? You aren't losing revenue if someone forks your project. By choosing the licenses they did they are encouraging it. Back when a lot of those were developed they had no competition, they were developed for the greater good of the community and their licenses reflect that.
Software patents didn't start to appear until later as that's when the consumer industry started to boom. At that point protecting your work is much more important if you want to survive as a tech business built around selling technology. There's a huge difference between a free community written open source app and a company's IP so I don't see the comparison.
Unix was most certainly not free when it first appeared. It was a proprietary AT&T system and was what sold mainframes back then. The only reason Unix spread so far beyond its original platforms is that other parties did with Unix precisely what Google did with Java. They provided free and faithful reimplementations of the entire Unix API and let other hardware platforms enjoy all of the functionality provided by Unix.
"In reality, as the evidence revealed at the hearing, Mr. Rubin began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed."
That quote is from Apples lawyers. I don't know where Rubin worked, but Apple is making some specific claims about who Rubin worked with and at what time.
Because I worked at Apple at the time and worked in RD and worked closely with what was known as ATG, where some of apple technologies were developed. What probably happen was the people Rubin worked for moved from Manufacturing when it was shutdown state side and move to Cupertino, this did happen, for those who could not get an R&D position at apple sometime got jobs in manufacturing, service and support and then transferred internally into the R&D and Development groups. Lots of manufacturing engineers who have diagnostic and test experience was able to move into product develop due knowledge of DFM. The Fact Rubin never is credits of working in R&D i highly doubt he saw any advance tech at apple, hell it was hard for me and I worked in the same building with the ATG teams.
Because I worked at Apple at the time and worked in RD and worked closely with what was known as ATG, where some of apple technologies were developed. What probably happen was the people Rubin worked for moved from Manufacturing when it was shutdown state side and move to Cupertino, this did happen, for those who could not get an R&D position at apple sometime got jobs in manufacturing, service and support and then transferred internally into the R&D and Development groups. Lots of manufacturing engineers who have diagnostic and test experience was able to move into product develop due knowledge of DFM. The Fact Rubin never is credits of working in R&D i highly doubt he saw any advance tech at apple, hell it was hard for me and I worked in the same building with the ATG teams.
Then yours is a well-qualified comment so thanks for taking the time to post it. Amazing the insights here, one reason I love the place.
Then yours is a well-qualified comment so thanks for taking the time to post it. Amazing the insights here, one reason I love the place.
I worked at Apple in the section where the pixies manufactured the magic dust from unicorn horns, I never saw Rubin there although he may have transferred there later.
I worked at Apple in the section where the pixies manufactured the magic dust from unicorn horns, I never saw Rubin there although he may have transferred there later.
Gotta love the Internet.
I never knew you had worked at Apple. You seem to be implying Maestro wasn't being honest. Anything particular you're basing that on?
...yet very unspecific as to what he worked on. If it was the Real-time API Apple's counsel would have said so, don't you agree?
Apple could have brought numerous things up at trial or when questioning witnesses. But since it never got that far, we don't know what other details pertain to Rubin. What we do know is this:
- Patent trials are very expensive and require a large investment in time and money.
- Patent trials are limited in scope to a small number of patents, and so companies suing will carefully choose which patents they want to use.
Apple brought up this patent against HTC. Apparently Apple thinks this patent is valuable and they also think Rubin stole it. You don't invest money and make claims without some significant evidence to back them up.
Based on the events so far any reasonable person would conclude Apple knows something about Rubin and his time at Apple. Certainly much more than anyone here knows. And certainly enough to go to trial over it. However despite this we gave people like you "inventing" scenarios to try by any means possible to minimize Rubin's time at Apple and imply he likely didn't have access to, or knowledge of this patent.
Sorry, but I'm going to side with the evidence regarding Apples actions. Unless you want to give us a theory why Apple would make claims about Rubin that they would have never been able to prove in court had this actually gone to a full trial instead of being settled.
Apple could have brought numerous things up at trial or when questioning witnesses. But since it never got that far, we don't know what other details pertain to Rubin . . . patent is valuable and they also think Rubin stole it.
Sorry, but I'm going to side with the evidence regarding Apples actions. Unless you want to give us a theory why Apple would make claims about Rubin that they would have never been able to prove in court had this actually gone to a full trial instead of being settled.
.
What are you going on about? The ONLY statement of facts Apple made is that Rubin worked for them in the early 90's... fact, and his supervisors were working on the "Real-time API patent"... fact.. Exceptionally easy to prove both things.
FWIW if you didn't notice the Apple comments were made in connection with an ITC hearing and not a "full patent infringement trial" and no where did Apple indicate Rubin "stole" anything. It was a simple "hey he worked here about the same time so maybe there's dots to connect" in an attempt to make an HTC statement sound disingenuous . Apparently you didn't read Apple's statement in context. Would you like me to point you to the correct document? I was looking at it a little earlier at EDIS.
I never knew you had worked at Apple. You seem to be implying Maestro wasn't being honest. Anything particular you're basing that on?
Nothing about whether Maestro is being honest.
Simply a demonstration that on the Internet you can be anything you want.
Another example are the paid for comment guys, paid for out of company marketing budgets such as the one's Samsung was fined for using against HTC in Taiwan.
Simply a demonstration that on the Internet you can be anything you want.
Another example are the paid for comment guys, paid for out of company marketing budgets such as the one's Samsung was fined for using against HTC in Taiwan.
Sure looks like you intended to introduce a little uncertainty and doubt about Maestro's assertions about his time at Apple. So now you're saying you do believe he's being honest? With no reason to suspect otherwise I do.
Sure looks like you intended to introduce a little uncertainty and doubt about Maestro's assertions about his time at Apple. So now you're saying you do believe he's being honest? With no reason to suspect otherwise I do.
More a statement on your ready acceptance.
Do you need links or will you let it slide this time?
Do you need links or will you let it slide this time?
It's ofttimes not all that hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. There's nothing in his post to raise suspicion and he's demonstrably a fan of Apple and their products if you look at his post history.
What are you going on about? The ONLY statement of facts Apple made is that Rubin worked for them in the early 90's... fact, and his supervisors were working on the "Real-time API patent"... fact.. Exceptionally easy to prove both things.
FWIW if you didn't notice the Apple comments were made in connection with an ITC hearing and not a "full patent infringement trial" and no where did Apple indicate Rubin "stole" anything. It was a simple "hey he worked here about the same time so maybe there's dots to connect" in an attempt to make an HTC statement sound disingenuous . Apparently you didn't read Apple's statement in context. Would you like me to point you to the correct document? I was looking at it a little earlier at EDIS.
I read them all. As I'm sure you did, but as usual for a troll you carefully chose which parts to talk about and which parts to omit.
Apple specifically brought up Rubin in the ITC hearing. As Foss points out: "But Apple now asserts -- in a filing with the ITC, which means Apple has a legal obligation to make truthful representations of fact".
While it's true Apple didn't specifically list what they know about Rubin, they're still putting their neck on the line. Apple isn't like Samsung, Google or you - they don't play games with little sound bites that are half-truths in order to sway public opinion or confuse juries/courts. Make no mistake - had things with HTC continued on in the court cases filed in different jurisdictions this would come back to haunt them. And if Apple has plans to bring the 263 patent up in future cases (which is a strong possibility) then they would have also shot themselves in the foot by bringing Rubin into the mix if there wasn't anything more than "hey he worked for us".
You can bet Apple knows exactly what he worked on, but has no plans to make this information public (such as in a court filing) until such time as the stakes are high enough (like a case against Google or Samsung).
Apple has more to think about than a single ITC ruling, something you can't seem to grasp.
Few would argue that Ford should be free to copy Ferrari's engine, or that Subaru should be able to use Audi's Quattro AWD in their cars. But, if you broke these systems down to their components you get nuts, bolts, gears and pistons - no<span style="line-height:1.4em;">ne of which are patentable. </span>
This is similar to the idiotic argument that Apple did not invent anything because all their products are based on fundamental inventions made by others. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">But according to this logic, nobody can claim to have invented anything because everything they did was </span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">based on prior work. If these brainiacs really believe their own argument, they should lobby</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Samsung to donate all its profits to the poor graduate students and professors who did the fundamental work that made Samsung's business possible.</span>
All the GSM, 3G and 4G standards essential patents have prior art in Morse code, they are just faster ways of pressing a button (0 or 1, long or short) transmitting a message over radio waves and decoding it at the other end, all done in software.
Unix was most certainly not free when it first appeared. It was a proprietary AT&T system and was what sold mainframes back then. The only reason Unix spread so far beyond its original platforms is that other parties did with Unix precisely what Google did with Java. They provided free and faithful reimplementations of the entire Unix API and let other hardware platforms enjoy all of the functionality provided by Unix.
I'll give you that but I'm still not sure where you're going. Linux has been challenged several times in the past and any time a possible infringement was found the code was rewritten. Never did they say "that shouldn't be patentable" they reworked their code to avoid stepping on others protected work. That's what should happen in my opinion, if you build a product with patented technology (inadvertently or not) you either license, or remove/rework the offending code.
Isn't that what this whole lawsuit is about? Before the lawsuit Apple asked Samsung to remove features they owned patents on. Samsung declined and are now being sued for it. How else can a company protect itself from theft?
Google is the worst for this and I believe they started the mess we're in today. Until Google created Android companies weren't so quick to copy and steal from one another. Google has repeatedly tried to shield itself by giving away it's clones for free in an attempt to devalue everyone else. When they tried to cross license patents what did they offer? Stock Android, something Apple doesn't need. Would they cross license search? No. Maps? No. Anything of value in return for patents they want from Apple? No. Somehow they've convinced a lot of developers to "do no evil" when they are the ones threatening the entire ecosystem. The only patents they feel are valuable are their own, everyone else's are "obvious" and should be "free".
Comments
I've mentioned this before - the issue isn't restricting the number of patents in a case - it's the time it takes to get to trial. In time-sensitive IP cases they need a special court where you can fast track the case while IP is still relevant. If this happened, then Apple could have already tried 20 or more patents in several smaller cases long ago. And Samsung wouldn't be able to game the system.
Quote:
Linkify is not some "analyzer server" that detects context; it's merely a library of search-and-replace functions that have to be called explicitly by the developer on a body of text, and it's the developer's job to specify what patterns to search for. Thus it's not essentially different from any other search and replace utility out there; any programmer could reproduce its functionality independently in a couple lines of Java or by piping the contents of a textview through some text processing utility like awk or sed. The addLinks() function is in fact implemented directly using Java's regex matching facilities (http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/ext/com.google.android/android/2.0_r1/android/text/util/Linkify.java).
Given that a patent covers a specific and novel method for achieving a result, and not the result itself, is it at all obvious that such a general and well-known technique (search and replace) infringes?
Linkify is exactly what Apple describes in their patent, an API to make structured matches on an open data set. Yes it is quite vague, as it should be since the patent is for pattern matching. I don't find their vagueness surprising, the patent was granted in 1996 and it makes sense to leave it open for future uses. Who knows what type of data we may need to link in the future. Originally they described addresses as the primary use, that's not to say it can't be used for other things down the line. Their patent covers their current implementation and future ones.
Calling either implementation nothing more than search/replace is a bit of a stretch isn't it? We both know regular expressions are more than that.
When Rubin worked at Apple they had around 14,000 employees. Rubin reported directly to the same 2 engineers that developed this patent, which was under development at the exact same time Rubin worked at Apple. What are the odds out of that many employees that he would end up working with these two? And what are the odds that while at Apple he never saw anything that would make him think "that's a great solution to xx problem" and later use it "even unintentionally"?
I can not say what Rubin may have saw in 89 to 92 or whether he actually report to people who have knowledge to future product ideas, But he was a manufacturing engineer which means is was not in Cupertino where all the future tech from apple was being done. He was most likely in the factory in Fremont prior to it being shut down, and was then assign to the factory in Colorado Springs. Most of the future Apple Tech was done in a small group in Cupertinon and unless you were on those development teams you did not know about it especially a manufacturing engineer, he was working on test systems and fixtures not product features.
"In reality, as the evidence revealed at the hearing, Mr. Rubin began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed."
That quote is from Apples lawyers. I don't know where Rubin worked, but Apple is making some specific claims about who Rubin worked with and at what time.
...yet very unspecific as to what he worked on. If it was the Real-time API Apple's counsel would have said so, don't you agree?
^This. As an example of how software patents were not popular or considered by some as a prerequisite for innovation until recently, open any algorithms textbook, such as CLRS, and count how many of the algorithms and data structures described there are patented. In terms of impact on the software industry, slide-to-unlock has nothing on those inventions. They were all widely recognized breakthroughs and are used by all modern software.
The most significant software systems to be invented were in fact never patented. I could cite examples like Unix, Apache, or LLVM, but instead of reproducing here an extensive list, I invite anyone to take a look at the full list of recipients for the ACM Software Systems award (http://awards.acm.org/software_system/).
And ^this is exactly where most software engineers can't see the forest from the trees.
If you reduce any product down to it's smallest parts, it becomes very fuzzy what is actually protectable by a manufacturer. However, there certainly are things which make a product "unique" in the minds of the people who use them. They are small details, but they are important.
Most of the time it's in the design details -- the way a particular car body is shaped, for example. So that's why Apple patents design details like slide-to-lock and bounce scrolling instead of the algorithms on which they are built. It's a straw-man argument to reduce these design details down to the algorithms and then state that they can't be patented because the algorithms were invented and published before. No one notices the algorithms, but they do notice how they are realized into tangible, unique features. It's not a trivial thing to turn a simple image processing algorithm into a unique design feature which sets your product apart from others.
Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that because those weren't patented, neither should slide to unlock?
You have to remind yourself of a few facts. Some developers wish to open source their apps, some don't. Just because one does, and you or I may feel it's more valuable than another, doesn't mean every developer is required to. It's up to the author to make that choice. For the apps you listed their intentions are obvious from their accompanying licenses.
It also has a lot to do with competition. Everything you listed is free, why would they need the protection of a patent? You aren't losing revenue if someone forks your project. By choosing the licenses they did they are encouraging it. Back when a lot of those were developed they had no competition, they were developed for the greater good of the community and their licenses reflect that.
Software patents didn't start to appear until later as that's when the consumer industry started to boom. At that point protecting your work is much more important if you want to survive as a tech business built around selling technology. There's a huge difference between a free community written open source app and a company's IP so I don't see the comparison.
Unix was most certainly not free when it first appeared. It was a proprietary AT&T system and was what sold mainframes back then. The only reason Unix spread so far beyond its original platforms is that other parties did with Unix precisely what Google did with Java. They provided free and faithful reimplementations of the entire Unix API and let other hardware platforms enjoy all of the functionality provided by Unix.
How do you know where Rubin actually worked?
"In reality, as the evidence revealed at the hearing, Mr. Rubin began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed."
That quote is from Apples lawyers. I don't know where Rubin worked, but Apple is making some specific claims about who Rubin worked with and at what time.
Because I worked at Apple at the time and worked in RD and worked closely with what was known as ATG, where some of apple technologies were developed. What probably happen was the people Rubin worked for moved from Manufacturing when it was shutdown state side and move to Cupertino, this did happen, for those who could not get an R&D position at apple sometime got jobs in manufacturing, service and support and then transferred internally into the R&D and Development groups. Lots of manufacturing engineers who have diagnostic and test experience was able to move into product develop due knowledge of DFM. The Fact Rubin never is credits of working in R&D i highly doubt he saw any advance tech at apple, hell it was hard for me and I worked in the same building with the ATG teams.
Then yours is a well-qualified comment so thanks for taking the time to post it. Amazing the insights here, one reason I love the place.
Then yours is a well-qualified comment so thanks for taking the time to post it. Amazing the insights here, one reason I love the place.
I worked at Apple in the section where the pixies manufactured the magic dust from unicorn horns, I never saw Rubin there although he may have transferred there later.
Gotta love the Internet.
I never knew you had worked at Apple.
Apple could have brought numerous things up at trial or when questioning witnesses. But since it never got that far, we don't know what other details pertain to Rubin. What we do know is this:
- Patent trials are very expensive and require a large investment in time and money.
- Patent trials are limited in scope to a small number of patents, and so companies suing will carefully choose which patents they want to use.
Apple brought up this patent against HTC. Apparently Apple thinks this patent is valuable and they also think Rubin stole it. You don't invest money and make claims without some significant evidence to back them up.
Based on the events so far any reasonable person would conclude Apple knows something about Rubin and his time at Apple. Certainly much more than anyone here knows. And certainly enough to go to trial over it. However despite this we gave people like you "inventing" scenarios to try by any means possible to minimize Rubin's time at Apple and imply he likely didn't have access to, or knowledge of this patent.
Sorry, but I'm going to side with the evidence regarding Apples actions. Unless you want to give us a theory why Apple would make claims about Rubin that they would have never been able to prove in court had this actually gone to a full trial instead of being settled.
What are you going on about? The ONLY statement of facts Apple made is that Rubin worked for them in the early 90's... fact, and his supervisors were working on the "Real-time API patent"... fact.. Exceptionally easy to prove both things.
FWIW if you didn't notice the Apple comments were made in connection with an ITC hearing and not a "full patent infringement trial" and no where did Apple indicate Rubin "stole" anything. It was a simple "hey he worked here about the same time so maybe there's dots to connect" in an attempt to make an HTC statement sound disingenuous . Apparently you didn't read Apple's statement in context. Would you like me to point you to the correct document? I was looking at it a little earlier at EDIS.
I never knew you had worked at Apple.
Nothing about whether Maestro is being honest.
Simply a demonstration that on the Internet you can be anything you want.
Another example are the paid for comment guys, paid for out of company marketing budgets such as the one's Samsung was fined for using against HTC in Taiwan.
Sure looks like you intended to introduce a little uncertainty and doubt about Maestro's assertions about his time at Apple. So now you're saying you do believe he's being honest? With no reason to suspect otherwise I do.
Sure looks like you intended to introduce a little uncertainty and doubt about Maestro's assertions about his time at Apple. So now you're saying you do believe he's being honest? With no reason to suspect otherwise I do.
More a statement on your ready acceptance.
Do you need links or will you let it slide this time?
It's ofttimes not all that hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. There's nothing in his post to raise suspicion and he's demonstrably a fan of Apple and their products if you look at his post history.
What are you going on about? The ONLY statement of facts Apple made is that Rubin worked for them in the early 90's... fact, and his supervisors were working on the "Real-time API patent"... fact.. Exceptionally easy to prove both things.
FWIW if you didn't notice the Apple comments were made in connection with an ITC hearing and not a "full patent infringement trial" and no where did Apple indicate Rubin "stole" anything. It was a simple "hey he worked here about the same time so maybe there's dots to connect" in an attempt to make an HTC statement sound disingenuous . Apparently you didn't read Apple's statement in context. Would you like me to point you to the correct document? I was looking at it a little earlier at EDIS.
I read them all. As I'm sure you did, but as usual for a troll you carefully chose which parts to talk about and which parts to omit.
Apple specifically brought up Rubin in the ITC hearing. As Foss points out: "But Apple now asserts -- in a filing with the ITC, which means Apple has a legal obligation to make truthful representations of fact".
While it's true Apple didn't specifically list what they know about Rubin, they're still putting their neck on the line. Apple isn't like Samsung, Google or you - they don't play games with little sound bites that are half-truths in order to sway public opinion or confuse juries/courts. Make no mistake - had things with HTC continued on in the court cases filed in different jurisdictions this would come back to haunt them. And if Apple has plans to bring the 263 patent up in future cases (which is a strong possibility) then they would have also shot themselves in the foot by bringing Rubin into the mix if there wasn't anything more than "hey he worked for us".
You can bet Apple knows exactly what he worked on, but has no plans to make this information public (such as in a court filing) until such time as the stakes are high enough (like a case against Google or Samsung).
Apple has more to think about than a single ITC ruling, something you can't seem to grasp.
All the GSM, 3G and 4G standards essential patents have prior art in Morse code, they are just faster ways of pressing a button (0 or 1, long or short) transmitting a message over radio waves and decoding it at the other end, all done in software.
Unix was most certainly not free when it first appeared. It was a proprietary AT&T system and was what sold mainframes back then. The only reason Unix spread so far beyond its original platforms is that other parties did with Unix precisely what Google did with Java. They provided free and faithful reimplementations of the entire Unix API and let other hardware platforms enjoy all of the functionality provided by Unix.
I'll give you that but I'm still not sure where you're going. Linux has been challenged several times in the past and any time a possible infringement was found the code was rewritten. Never did they say "that shouldn't be patentable" they reworked their code to avoid stepping on others protected work. That's what should happen in my opinion, if you build a product with patented technology (inadvertently or not) you either license, or remove/rework the offending code.
Isn't that what this whole lawsuit is about? Before the lawsuit Apple asked Samsung to remove features they owned patents on. Samsung declined and are now being sued for it. How else can a company protect itself from theft?
Google is the worst for this and I believe they started the mess we're in today. Until Google created Android companies weren't so quick to copy and steal from one another. Google has repeatedly tried to shield itself by giving away it's clones for free in an attempt to devalue everyone else. When they tried to cross license patents what did they offer? Stock Android, something Apple doesn't need. Would they cross license search? No. Maps? No. Anything of value in return for patents they want from Apple? No. Somehow they've convinced a lot of developers to "do no evil" when they are the ones threatening the entire ecosystem. The only patents they feel are valuable are their own, everyone else's are "obvious" and should be "free".