Apple's patent 'warning shots' prove disruptive for handset makers

24567

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 121
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,156member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RCO3 View Post


    Liberal quoting negates the value of the ignore list.



    I never use ignore lists. I prefer to choose to reply or not to
  • Reply 22 of 121
    chronsterchronster Posts: 1,894member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tawilson View Post


    You further demonstrated your misunderstanding of patents. The outcome is irrelevant, it's the how it's handled (implemented) that matters.



    I will also say, I am no patent lawyer, or even a lawyer for that matter.



    Well I said I was fuzzy about the whole thing. Could you be more clear about what you mean by "how it's handled"? Are you talking about how the developers got from point a to point b, or how the code is used in the OS?
  • Reply 23 of 121
    tawilsontawilson Posts: 484member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    Well I said I was fuzzy about the whole thing. Could you be more clear about what you mean by "how it's handled"? Are you talking about how the developers got from point a to point b, or how the code is used in the OS?



    No worries, again from the way I understand it...



    I'll use an example for sorting. There are numerous ways in which you can go about sorting things.



    If I had a patent on Bubble-sorting, then nobody would be allowed to sort data that way without licensing it from me.



    How ever they would be free to implement there own completely different method of sorting.





    Searching is another example, forever people would search strings of text from the beginning which would involve checking every character.



    However, some bright spark figured out that it would be more efficient and a hell of a lot faster to search backwards, as you can then skip "upto" the length of the search term each time. If they'd patented that reverse search method, then nobody else could search that way without licensing.



    The exact code and end result are irrelevant, it's what the code does that is the important bit.
  • Reply 24 of 121
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,743member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RCO3 View Post


    Liberal quoting negates the value of the ignore list.



    Ignore Lists don't work as they should to begin with. Little point in using them. Everyone should instead be a mensch and deal with posts as they come. Those that are truly disruptive will be dealt with by the mods in due course anyway.
  • Reply 25 of 121
    jpellinojpellino Posts: 612member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post


    For a company with a 40 billion dollar war chest it took them a long time to shutdown a bunch of guys in garage. No wonder HTC and Nokia aren't exactly running scared.



    Most of that was legal wrangling with a company that did not exactly understand what they were up against. It takes lots of time and money to fight a multitude of (however misguided) legal chaff. This new strategy is a reasonable move for Apple - if they can stop these in advance it's less legal wrangling that has to be done after the infringement for many more dollars.
  • Reply 26 of 121
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    So I guess they're pretty confident that the multi-touch stuff was ripped off directly from their code.



    I keep thinking of all the things an iphone does that's common among devices that existed before it, and it seems like someone could loosely apply the same logic to Apple. For instance, copy and paste. It's handled different than in WM, but the outcome is the same. If multi-touch was handled differently, but the outcome is the same, and Apple sues, then this logic could be twisted on them. That's why I think they're confident in knowing they were directly ripped off.



    I'm still fuzzy on whether or not the final outcome of code is what a company can be taken to court over, or the actual code it's self (being a complete ripoff.)





    there is most likely some mathematical algorithm behind the iPhone multi-Touch and you can patent that. if Google or HTC used the same algorithm then it's fair game for a lawsuit.
  • Reply 27 of 121
    igeniusigenius Posts: 1,240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Nonsense. Saber-rattling is non-credible unless you can back it up with action.




    The danger in patent infringement suits is that the original patent can end up invalidated, for any number of reasons. And from what I have seen of Apple's patents and recent patent applications, the danger is very real to them. They seem to try to patent stuff which is not novel, IMO.



    Generally, it is better to license than to sue, for this and many other reasons.



    It is telling that Apple sued tiny HTC, rather than the companies it relies upon for IP licenses. Litigation is rarely the best strategy - it is like war, where even the winners often lose in the long run. While war is a failure of diplomacy, litigation is a failure of negotiation.



    I predict that the HTC suit will never reach trial. I predict that HTC will be aided by the company with the most to lose, which is Google. I predict that Apple will see that it needs Google more than it needs HTC to stop, and that realization will lead to a negotiated solution that works for everybody.
  • Reply 28 of 121
    woohoo!woohoo! Posts: 291member
    Apple might have a 40 billion dollar war chest, they are not Bruce Lee and can take down everyone just yet.



    So once Apple takes a hit in their pocketbook, the others will close in for the kill.



    My suspects is Google is not backing up HTC with legal funds like Microsoft said it would with their partners.





    This corporate warfare thing reminds me of a herd of deer. The young bucks compete and fight each other, hoping to get strong enough one day to take down the head buck and rule the herd.
  • Reply 29 of 121
    icyfogicyfog Posts: 338member
    This is great.

    Where's the popcorn? I can't wait to see how this unfolds.
  • Reply 30 of 121
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by delreyjones View Post


    Seems to me that Apple learned lessons from the Mac GUI back in the 1980s



    Maybe, but the look-and-feel claims were rejected by the court. I think this is more likely informed by the Quicktime/Video for Windows debacle. I forget the precise details, but Apple outsourced porting chunks of the Mac OS to Windows so Quicktime could run, and the company that did that work later reused some of that technology in Video for Windows. It was an ugly, ugly mess that took years to settle.



    I think Apple's actions are those of a company that wants to avoid getting completely screwed over, and so they're drawing a hard line to prevent it from getting to that point.



    Not unreasonable, seems to me.
  • Reply 31 of 121
    normmnormm Posts: 567member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jahonen View Post


    Apple's cash is about 24B, 200B market cap.



    Your numbers for cash are out of date -- they had over $24 billion in 2008. From the most recent quarterly report, Apple has $39.8 billion in cash and short and long term securities.
  • Reply 32 of 121
    chronsterchronster Posts: 1,894member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tawilson View Post


    No worries, again from the way I understand it...



    I'll use an example for sorting. There are numerous ways in which you can go about sorting things.



    If I had a patent on Bubble-sorting, then nobody would be allowed to sort data that way without licensing it from me.



    How ever they would be free to implement there own completely different method of sorting.





    Searching is another example, forever people would search strings of text from the beginning which would involve checking every character.



    However, some bright spark figured out that it would be more efficient and a hell of a lot faster to search backwards, as you can then skip "upto" the length of the search term each time. If they'd patented that reverse search method, then nobody else could search that way without licensing.



    The exact code and end result are irrelevant, it's what the code does that is the important bit.



    So lets say Apple's multi-touch works with two x y coordinates, while Google's code works with a line drawn between two spots pressed on the screen (working with the line's angle and length to calculate positioning) then Google gets pinch to zoom working in their photo app. The code does different things to make multi-touch work. Is this still a patent issue?



    I only ask because when it comes down to it, especially in software engineering, there can be 100 different ways to get to the same result as someone else. I always thought that same result is what was being contested.



    Good thing I'm not running a company making stuff like this. I'd be sued before I could get a product out of the door
  • Reply 33 of 121
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,296member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    I never use ignore lists. I prefer to choose to reply or not to



    You still don't have to be lazy and quote the entire post of an obvious troll.
  • Reply 34 of 121
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 1,917member
    Even if Apple ultimately doesn't win its patent cases, they do get the advantage of spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about their competitors. If they are able to delay competing products or cause competitors to limit the functionality of those products, then this strategy is probably worth it because it gives Apple more time to build marketshare. There will come a point in time where Apple's scale advantages are so large that even if their patents are invalidated, they will be almost invulnerable (assuming they continue to innovate and offer products at least as good as the competition). Ultimately economic advantages are more important than legal advantages.
  • Reply 35 of 121
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post


    For a company with a 40 billion dollar war chest it took them a long time to shutdown a bunch of guys in garage. No wonder HTC and Nokia aren't exactly running scared.



    It is doubtful that HTC or Nokia would declare bankruptcy as a delaying tactic, as Psystar did.
  • Reply 36 of 121
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by delreyjones View Post


    Seems to me that Apple learned lessons from the Mac GUI back in the 1980s and therefore they are not doomed to see history repeat itself. They've once again re-invented the UI of a major electronic device, but this time Apple will be the ones to fully monetize this valuable innovation. So you got it right: Go Apple!



    Well said!
  • Reply 37 of 121
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jahonen View Post


    Apple's cash is about 24B, 200B market cap.



    Google about 24B (178B cap), MSFT about 33B in cash (250B cap). Nokia's cash figures I couldn't find in 3 minutes, but their market cap is 50B.



    --update--

    Nokia's cash seems to be 12B if I read forbes correctly (but that's not necessarily the same data as the other results from yahoo finance. Interesting is Nokia and Apple comparison from Forbes: Total current Assets: 33,8B and 33,5B respectively.



    So there's a few Gargantuan "who specifically"s.



    Regs, Jarkko



    And just where did you come up with 24 billion in cash? All financial reports, and at Apple's own shareholder meeting, the amount was more like 40 billion.
  • Reply 38 of 121
    wonderwonder Posts: 229member
    One of the things Apple patented was the concept of multi-touch.

    That is the idea that using more than one touch point to carry out an action.

    As an example the pinch / zoom action using two fingers is an Apple patent.

    Not how the software does it, not the code, but the actual act of using two points to zoom in and out of an image / screen. Apple patented this, and if someone else does that then they break the patent regardless of the software used to do it. It is the same with the sweep of the finger to unlock the phone, it is an Apple patent, they came up with it first and therefore is another phone does it then they are stealing the idea.
  • Reply 39 of 121
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Before Apple publicly sued HTC, the iPhone maker has privately had "blunt conversations" with other smartphone companies that have proven disruptive to the roadmaps of would-be iPhone killers, according to a new report. ...



    The thing I find most interesting about this information is that the day the patent suit was revealed, HTC said something to the effect of how they didn't see this coming, they were taken completely by surprise, had no idea, etc...



    If this report is true, then at least we know that was total BS.
  • Reply 40 of 121
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iStud View Post


    I'm sure you are an expert in patent law, right



    no, but the 2 guys who apple hired and did 'multitouch' developed the technology at university and it looks like the university may actually hold the patents.
Sign In or Register to comment.