To be fair, recent litigation has every appearance to me of being a patent war. Apple (add MS too) is trying their their best to litigate Android out of existence rather than let normal market forces rule. While Microsoft might be just as happy to license them to death, Apple isn't likely to agree to any licensing of tech that courts don't demand of it. They (and perhaps it's driven primarily by Mr. Jobs) just want them gone from the market by whatever means necessary IMHO. Just my 2 cents.
And what would Apple gain by licensing all of their IP? How would that benefit the iOS platform?
Apple invested time and money to revolutionize the industry; is it fair that Google simply copied (read stole) Apples design in order to make a quick buck?
Even with all its capacity to be abused, the patent system does exist for a legitimate reason, and I for one can't think of a better example of that reason than this "patent war."
No matter how many times it's repeated that Google stole Apple's idea for a smartphone doesn't make it true. It's not even clear which one first decided to pursue a mobile OS. It's absolutely possible that Android pre-dates iOS, and even that Apple (Steve Jobs?) used Google and or Andy Rubin for some ideas for the iPhone.
The "Blackberry-like" prototype so often mentioned here was only one of at least 5 different mockups Google showed around using different hardware setups and form factors, and produced by various mobile manufacturers. Among those 5 was at least one with a touchscrren interface rather than rocker or trackball.
I call BS... Why did it take 18 months after the debut of the iPhone to bring an Android phone to the market then? And where were these other models and form factors?
And then, wait for it... over a year after the debut of the iPad, they release a tablet based OS to market.
Sorry, but it all adds up to one thing... "Hey look at that! That's what we should do too!"
I'll grant you that they may have had a phone with a touch screen, but not a multi-touch interface. It was probably like everything other touch screen at the time, single touch with a stylus.
No matter how many times it's repeated that Google stole Apple's idea for a smartphone doesn't make it true. It's not even clear which one first decided to pursue a mobile OS. It's absolutely possible that Android pre-dates iOS, and even that Apple (Steve Jobs?) used Google and or Andy Rubin for some ideas for the iPhone.
I think I'll let the courts decide who's right and who's wrong... whatever Steve's motives may be. As mentioned before... we mere mortals may never know who knew what and when. For all I know it was a private conversation between Steve and Woz and then one day Woz was having a beer with Rubin... or vice versa (... and does Eric S. look like a guy that would hang with the boys at the corner pub...)
The questions that seem to be up for debate... "is Apple wrong in suing to protect its IP?' and "is it Apple's lack of being able to innovate that has left it with only one alternative... litigation?".
I'm sure you know how I feel about both of those questions.
No matter how many times it's repeated that Google stole Apple's idea for a smartphone doesn't make it true. It's not even clear which one first decided to pursue a mobile OS. It's absolutely possible that Android pre-dates iOS, and even that Apple (Steve Jobs?) used Google and or Andy Rubin for some ideas for the iPhone.
Again sorry... this has nothing to do with who was first to pursue a mobile OS ... First of all, Newton OS was around LONG before Android.
It has everything to do with what is considered a mobile OS NOW. Before iPhone, every mobile OS was point and click based, with scroll bars, pop up menus and even windows. Even on touch based devices which have been around a long time; again the Newton was released in 1993 and there were others before that.
Post iPhone and look at the landscape of mobile OS... they are ALL multi-touch enabled, direct manipulation devices, which is what iOS brought to the market.
Second, the patents HTC was found guilty of violating, has nothing to do with mobile OS, it has to do with data detection; recognizing familiar bits of data within a larger chunk of data and providing a method to interact with it. Such as highlighting, phone numbers, addresses, dates, etc in an email or note, which was patented and used in both the Newton OS and Mac OS 7.5 in the mid 90's.
I call BS... Why did it take 18 months after the debut of the iPhone to bring an Android phone to the market then?
And then, wait for it... over a year after the debut of the iPad, they bring an Android based tablet to market.
Sorry, but it all adds up to one thing... "Hey look at that! That's what we should do too!"
I'll grant you that they may have had a phone with a touch screen, but not a multi-touch interface. It was probably like everything other touch screen at the time, single touch with a stylus.
I have to agree with you on that one. If Google and Rubin were really developing a touch phone you would have thought that their timeline wouldn't be that far off from Apple (yes... they had the tech and the drawings but did they really think it would fly before they saw the iPhone). 18 months is an eternity in the tech world.
All this crap about Apple this and Apple that, whine whine whine why don't HTC and acer etc all turn round to Google and say 'what the fuck is with the OS you supplied us, get a deal in place with Apple to protect us'
Steve Jobs made it very clear that Apple was going to defend it's IP the day the iPhone was announced. Now Apple is trying to stomp a mud hole in these companies and kick it dry they're surprised? Now it is Apple that is not playing fair, not competing, not innovating?
I'll grant you that they may have had a phone with a touch screen, but not a multi-touch interface. It was probably like everything other touch screen at the time, single touch with a stylus.
Actually it was multi-touch, but the long press that Android now uses to bring up menu's instead was used to zoom in.
I'm not in any way suggesting that Apple hasn't been the primary innovator in recent years for both smartphones and tablets, but that doesn't mean others can't swing on the same playground. Wherever there's market success you're going to see competitor's. That doesn't necessarily make them thief's as much as imitators. IMO even Apple's success can be traced to their imitation of Sony, both in production ideas and the very successful Walkman products.
A big part of the problem is what do you mean by 'steal IP'. Do you for example think that Apple stole IP from the playlist patent troll they had to pay recently? Did they steal IP from Nokia? From S3? From Kodak?
Every firm inevitably infringes on patents when they produce a new product, it's probably impossible at this point to avoid it because Patents have been allowed that are insanely broad or obvious in light of prior art.
This isn't an open/shut case of good firms and evil. This is all shades of grey.
OK fine, the patent laws aren't perfect, nor are the courts which make judgements based on them. Human judgement is prone to error and all that.
In this case however, is there really anyone who can claim with a straight face that Apple didn't revolutionize the way we think of smartphones (whereas the patent trolls have never revolutionized anything at all)? Does anyone care to deny that if all these tech companies hadn't copied Apples design they would be on the road to bankruptcy right now? In this case one can't help but think that this revolution does constitute some sort of work/innovation on the part of the one who started the it, and that this work/innovation deserves credit.
Just because the system suffers from broad/obvious patents does not mean that we should just shrug our shoulders and give up. Patent courts exist to decide these matters, and in this case it sounds like that decision is more or less made.
I have to agree with you on that one. If Google and Rubin were really developing a touch phone you would have thought that their timeline wouldn't be that far off from Apple (yes... they had the tech and the drawings but did they really think it would fly before they saw the iPhone). 18 months is an eternity in the tech world.
Agreed. Given how Google normally does things, it would have been released as a Beta with bugs and all as soon as they pulled the idea out of their ass.
I have to agree with you on that one. If Google and Rubin were really developing a touch phone you would have thought that their timeline wouldn't be that far off from Apple (yes... they had the tech and the drawings but did they really think it would fly before they saw the iPhone). 18 months is an eternity in the tech world.
Google didn't produce phones (any hardware at all in fact) and had no real control over who would use it or when they'd have their designs ready. So the observation that it took a few months for manufacturers to recognize the value in getting into the smartphone market, and only after Apple was showing success, should be no surprise. Android was ready before the handset manufacturer's that would use it were convinced it was worth pursuing. So the "18 month delay" is no indication at all that it was due to Google trying to copy/steal from Apple.
Actually it was multi-touch, but the long press that Android now uses to bring up menu's instead was used to zoom in.
I'm not in any way suggesting that Apple hasn't been the primary innovator in recent years for both smartphones and tablets, but that doesn't mean others can't swing on the same playground. Wherever there's market success you're going to see competitor's. That doesn't necessarily make them thief's as much as imitators. IMO even Apple's success can be traced to their imitation of Sony, both in production ideas and the very successful Walkman products.
Again, I have to disagree. When you 'imitate' a patented invention by copying it, then you are by definition infringing the patent. While you may not consider that 'theft' in a technical sense, it is still against the law.
Actually it was multi-touch, but the long press that Android now uses to bring up menu's instead was used to zoom in.
I'm not in any way suggesting that Apple hasn't been the primary innovator in recent years for both smartphones and tablets, but that doesn't mean others can't swing on the same playground. Wherever there's market success you're going to see competitor's. That doesn't necessarily make them thief's as much as imitators. IMO even Apple's success can be traced to their imitation of Sony, both in production ideas and the very successful Walkman products.
Holding a finger down for any giving amount of time, is not multi-touch. Multi-touch means more than one point of contact. What you're describing can be done with a mouse and was years before that in Mac OS.
Actually Apple (S.Jobs) has openly admitted to being a fan a Sony, in fact, Sony made all of Apple's early monitors and even leant a hand in designing Apple's first real notebook computer. There's nothing wrong with partnering up with another company to design things. And there's nothing wrong with being influenced by others. But there is a difference between influence and copy. There are many different ways to create something and finding your own way/method takes a lot of work.
No matter how many times it's repeated that Google stole Apple's idea for a smartphone doesn't make it true. It's not even clear which one first decided to pursue a mobile OS. It's absolutely possible that Android pre-dates iOS, and even that Apple (Steve Jobs?) used Google and or Andy Rubin for some ideas for the iPhone.
Well, neither of them were the first to pursue a mobile OS; MS, Palm, et al. had mobile OSs long before Apple/Google entered the industry. That's not the point; the point is innovative features.
What is clear is that Apple was the first to bring a finished product to the market and that Google took a suspiciously long time to release a supposedly independently developed, almost identical product. so what is the casual observer to conclude?
As for the unclear, well, one supposes that that's why lawyers have all that training to be non-casual observers.
Google didn't produce phones (any hardware at all in fact) and had no real control over who would use it or when they'd have their designs ready. So the observation that it took a few months for manufacturers to recognize the value in getting into the smartphone market, and only after Apple was showing success, should be no surprise. Android was ready before the handset manufacturer's that would use it were convinced it was worth pursuing.
The fact that Google does not produce phones seems to indicate that it is extremely implausible that they were producing software that requires hardware that none of their potential clients were even dreaming of producing, does it not?
Comments
Schmidt & Wang.
Sounds ominous. Or funny. I keep switching back and forth.......
Sturm und Drang... Donner und Blitzen...
... or maybe just Frick and Frack
To be fair, recent litigation has every appearance to me of being a patent war. Apple (add MS too) is trying their their best to litigate Android out of existence rather than let normal market forces rule. While Microsoft might be just as happy to license them to death, Apple isn't likely to agree to any licensing of tech that courts don't demand of it. They (and perhaps it's driven primarily by Mr. Jobs) just want them gone from the market by whatever means necessary IMHO. Just my 2 cents.
And what would Apple gain by licensing all of their IP? How would that benefit the iOS platform?
Fair?
Apple invested time and money to revolutionize the industry; is it fair that Google simply copied (read stole) Apples design in order to make a quick buck?
Even with all its capacity to be abused, the patent system does exist for a legitimate reason, and I for one can't think of a better example of that reason than this "patent war."
No matter how many times it's repeated that Google stole Apple's idea for a smartphone doesn't make it true. It's not even clear which one first decided to pursue a mobile OS. It's absolutely possible that Android pre-dates iOS, and even that Apple (Steve Jobs?) used Google and or Andy Rubin for some ideas for the iPhone.
The "Blackberry-like" prototype so often mentioned here was only one of at least 5 different mockups Google showed around using different hardware setups and form factors, and produced by various mobile manufacturers. Among those 5 was at least one with a touchscrren interface rather than rocker or trackball.
I call BS... Why did it take 18 months after the debut of the iPhone to bring an Android phone to the market then? And where were these other models and form factors?
And then, wait for it... over a year after the debut of the iPad, they release a tablet based OS to market.
Sorry, but it all adds up to one thing... "Hey look at that! That's what we should do too!"
I'll grant you that they may have had a phone with a touch screen, but not a multi-touch interface. It was probably like everything other touch screen at the time, single touch with a stylus.
No matter how many times it's repeated that Google stole Apple's idea for a smartphone doesn't make it true. It's not even clear which one first decided to pursue a mobile OS. It's absolutely possible that Android pre-dates iOS, and even that Apple (Steve Jobs?) used Google and or Andy Rubin for some ideas for the iPhone.
I think I'll let the courts decide who's right and who's wrong... whatever Steve's motives may be. As mentioned before... we mere mortals may never know who knew what and when. For all I know it was a private conversation between Steve and Woz and then one day Woz was having a beer with Rubin... or vice versa (... and does Eric S. look like a guy that would hang with the boys at the corner pub...)
The questions that seem to be up for debate... "is Apple wrong in suing to protect its IP?' and "is it Apple's lack of being able to innovate that has left it with only one alternative... litigation?".
I'm sure you know how I feel about both of those questions.
No matter how many times it's repeated that Google stole Apple's idea for a smartphone doesn't make it true. It's not even clear which one first decided to pursue a mobile OS. It's absolutely possible that Android pre-dates iOS, and even that Apple (Steve Jobs?) used Google and or Andy Rubin for some ideas for the iPhone.
Again sorry... this has nothing to do with who was first to pursue a mobile OS ... First of all, Newton OS was around LONG before Android.
It has everything to do with what is considered a mobile OS NOW. Before iPhone, every mobile OS was point and click based, with scroll bars, pop up menus and even windows. Even on touch based devices which have been around a long time; again the Newton was released in 1993 and there were others before that.
Post iPhone and look at the landscape of mobile OS... they are ALL multi-touch enabled, direct manipulation devices, which is what iOS brought to the market.
Second, the patents HTC was found guilty of violating, has nothing to do with mobile OS, it has to do with data detection; recognizing familiar bits of data within a larger chunk of data and providing a method to interact with it. Such as highlighting, phone numbers, addresses, dates, etc in an email or note, which was patented and used in both the Newton OS and Mac OS 7.5 in the mid 90's.
I call BS... Why did it take 18 months after the debut of the iPhone to bring an Android phone to the market then?
And then, wait for it... over a year after the debut of the iPad, they bring an Android based tablet to market.
Sorry, but it all adds up to one thing... "Hey look at that! That's what we should do too!"
I'll grant you that they may have had a phone with a touch screen, but not a multi-touch interface. It was probably like everything other touch screen at the time, single touch with a stylus.
I have to agree with you on that one. If Google and Rubin were really developing a touch phone you would have thought that their timeline wouldn't be that far off from Apple (yes... they had the tech and the drawings but did they really think it would fly before they saw the iPhone). 18 months is an eternity in the tech world.
I'll grant you that they may have had a phone with a touch screen, but not a multi-touch interface. It was probably like everything other touch screen at the time, single touch with a stylus.
Actually it was multi-touch, but the long press that Android now uses to bring up menu's instead was used to zoom in.
I'm not in any way suggesting that Apple hasn't been the primary innovator in recent years for both smartphones and tablets, but that doesn't mean others can't swing on the same playground. Wherever there's market success you're going to see competitor's. That doesn't necessarily make them thief's as much as imitators. IMO even Apple's success can be traced to their imitation of Sony, both in production ideas and the very successful Walkman products.
A big part of the problem is what do you mean by 'steal IP'. Do you for example think that Apple stole IP from the playlist patent troll they had to pay recently? Did they steal IP from Nokia? From S3? From Kodak?
Every firm inevitably infringes on patents when they produce a new product, it's probably impossible at this point to avoid it because Patents have been allowed that are insanely broad or obvious in light of prior art.
This isn't an open/shut case of good firms and evil. This is all shades of grey.
OK fine, the patent laws aren't perfect, nor are the courts which make judgements based on them. Human judgement is prone to error and all that.
In this case however, is there really anyone who can claim with a straight face that Apple didn't revolutionize the way we think of smartphones (whereas the patent trolls have never revolutionized anything at all)? Does anyone care to deny that if all these tech companies hadn't copied Apples design they would be on the road to bankruptcy right now? In this case one can't help but think that this revolution does constitute some sort of work/innovation on the part of the one who started the it, and that this work/innovation deserves credit.
Just because the system suffers from broad/obvious patents does not mean that we should just shrug our shoulders and give up. Patent courts exist to decide these matters, and in this case it sounds like that decision is more or less made.
I have to agree with you on that one. If Google and Rubin were really developing a touch phone you would have thought that their timeline wouldn't be that far off from Apple (yes... they had the tech and the drawings but did they really think it would fly before they saw the iPhone). 18 months is an eternity in the tech world.
Agreed. Given how Google normally does things, it would have been released as a Beta with bugs and all as soon as they pulled the idea out of their ass.
I have to agree with you on that one. If Google and Rubin were really developing a touch phone you would have thought that their timeline wouldn't be that far off from Apple (yes... they had the tech and the drawings but did they really think it would fly before they saw the iPhone). 18 months is an eternity in the tech world.
Google didn't produce phones (any hardware at all in fact) and had no real control over who would use it or when they'd have their designs ready. So the observation that it took a few months for manufacturers to recognize the value in getting into the smartphone market, and only after Apple was showing success, should be no surprise. Android was ready before the handset manufacturer's that would use it were convinced it was worth pursuing. So the "18 month delay" is no indication at all that it was due to Google trying to copy/steal from Apple.
Actually it was multi-touch, but the long press that Android now uses to bring up menu's instead was used to zoom in.
I'm not in any way suggesting that Apple hasn't been the primary innovator in recent years for both smartphones and tablets, but that doesn't mean others can't swing on the same playground. Wherever there's market success you're going to see competitor's. That doesn't necessarily make them thief's as much as imitators. IMO even Apple's success can be traced to their imitation of Sony, both in production ideas and the very successful Walkman products.
Again, I have to disagree. When you 'imitate' a patented invention by copying it, then you are by definition infringing the patent. While you may not consider that 'theft' in a technical sense, it is still against the law.
Actually it was multi-touch, but the long press that Android now uses to bring up menu's instead was used to zoom in.
I'm not in any way suggesting that Apple hasn't been the primary innovator in recent years for both smartphones and tablets, but that doesn't mean others can't swing on the same playground. Wherever there's market success you're going to see competitor's. That doesn't necessarily make them thief's as much as imitators. IMO even Apple's success can be traced to their imitation of Sony, both in production ideas and the very successful Walkman products.
Holding a finger down for any giving amount of time, is not multi-touch. Multi-touch means more than one point of contact. What you're describing can be done with a mouse and was years before that in Mac OS.
Actually Apple (S.Jobs) has openly admitted to being a fan a Sony, in fact, Sony made all of Apple's early monitors and even leant a hand in designing Apple's first real notebook computer. There's nothing wrong with partnering up with another company to design things. And there's nothing wrong with being influenced by others. But there is a difference between influence and copy. There are many different ways to create something and finding your own way/method takes a lot of work.
No matter how many times it's repeated that Google stole Apple's idea for a smartphone doesn't make it true. It's not even clear which one first decided to pursue a mobile OS. It's absolutely possible that Android pre-dates iOS, and even that Apple (Steve Jobs?) used Google and or Andy Rubin for some ideas for the iPhone.
Well, neither of them were the first to pursue a mobile OS; MS, Palm, et al. had mobile OSs long before Apple/Google entered the industry. That's not the point; the point is innovative features.
What is clear is that Apple was the first to bring a finished product to the market and that Google took a suspiciously long time to release a supposedly independently developed, almost identical product. so what is the casual observer to conclude?
As for the unclear, well, one supposes that that's why lawyers have all that training to be non-casual observers.
Suck it, losers!
Google didn't produce phones (any hardware at all in fact) and had no real control over who would use it or when they'd have their designs ready. So the observation that it took a few months for manufacturers to recognize the value in getting into the smartphone market, and only after Apple was showing success, should be no surprise. Android was ready before the handset manufacturer's that would use it were convinced it was worth pursuing.
The fact that Google does not produce phones seems to indicate that it is extremely implausible that they were producing software that requires hardware that none of their potential clients were even dreaming of producing, does it not?