Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't about half of the patent lawsuits Apple's in or been in lately a result of Apple being sued first (defensive countersuits and all that)? I know they've initiated a few, but not every patent dispute lately was started by them.
and if that's wrong? it made IOS affordable to many who could not afford Apple's expensively designed hardware. It seems to me that Apple and Apple users are happy to keep information and the information age from the disadvantaged.
I'm sure Acer would be more than happy to create IOS tablets but Apple has a monopoly on their software and hardware.
...So? Apple does not have to grant a license if they don't want to. Acer is in an industry where innovation is king... and they are not innovating. Sounds an awful lot like they have a fatal flaw in their business model.
RIght?! Some posters make such blatantly incorrect and asinine comments that it's pointless to even try to have civil conversation with them. I do wonder how these people get along in others in person with such stupid comments.
...So? Apple does not have to grant a license if they don't want to. Acer is in an industry where innovation is king... and they are not innovating. Sounds an awful lot like they have a fatal flaw in their business model.
It's fruitless to using logic and common sense to argue fair trade when your opponent doesn't believe in a free market system.
and if that's wrong? it made IOS affordable to many who could not afford Apple's expensively designed hardware. It seems to me that Apple and Apple users are happy to keep information and the information age from the disadvantaged.
It's fruitless to using logic and common sense to argue fair trade when your opponent doesn't believe in a free market system.
You do have to love the idea that Apple is inexplicably hoarding what is apparently a naturally occurring resource-- their software-- and should therefore be cool with public minded entities making that software more generally available by sticking it on cheap commodity hardware. Because otherwise the poor will be sad.
Not sure what role things like Android or Windows play in this scenario-- punishment for not having more money? The badlands that they build Indian Reservations on after Apple hogged all the good real estate?
As to it being impossible that Google would create software that couldn't run on anything that existed, that's silly. MS has done that plenty of times - that's what emulators are for. You can be quite sure that Apple had the iPhone version of iOS running on emulation long before they had any hardware that could run it natively.
So, using emulators, Google developed an OS for hardware that didn't exist, and coincidentally Apple created almost exactly the same software along with the needed hardware. Sorry, thats too much of a coincidence.
They had no plans to produce a phone, and of course they'd deny rumors about what their actual plans were as much as possible. Apple's denied several things that actually were in the works. But there's also no way that Apple was unaware that Google had plans for a mobile OS. My personal feeling is that Apple/Steve Jobs wanted to keep Google close to make sure they knew what they were up to. That's why Schmidt was invited to the board. IMO, it's was Apple's idea to mine Google, not the other way around.
If you read the timeline posted again here, I think it may be clearer:
If you want to act as Google defender/apologist, that's fine, but you appear to be trying to talk yourself into the idea that the iPhone copied Android, or that Apple only decided to enter the phone business once they realized that Google was going to. At that point you've kind of crossed a line from "apologist" to "fantasist."
Except ownership in the patent world is simply never that clear. There can be many reasons why the patent is invalid or inapplicable. This is why Apple chooses to fight so many infringement cases against it - not because it wants to 'steal'. Google can make the same case in many of these instances.
This is why the law doesn't class infringing patents as theft.
Isn't whether we talk about this in terms of theft basically irrelevant? The real issue is this: I as corporation A (Apple) have technologies which I have patented and I believe that those patents are valid and enforceable. I have the absolute right as the patent holder to set the terms under which you may use my invention, and I have the right to totally bar you from using it, at my discretion.Your right extends only to litigating to invalidate my patent - you don't get to choose to ignore it because you don't like it, and that is basically what some of the people on this thread are arguing that Apple should do.
So, using emulators, Google developed an OS for hardware that didn't exist, and coincidentally Apple created almost exactly the same software along with the needed hardware. Sorry, thats too much of a coincidence.
It's not really that outrageous a coincidence. The multitouch displays had been publicly demonstrated back in 2006 I believe. Smartphones using keypads had been around running various different OSes. Innovation frequently occurs simultaneously or nearly so - because innovation is driven by what exists already. Newton & Leibnitz simultaneously inventing calculus is the classic example.
The first maser was built by Townes in America in 1953, independently of the theoretical work being done in the Soviet Union by Prokhorov and Basov. The maser was FAR more radical a concept than the touchscreen smartphone, when Townes described it to contemporaries such as Einstein and Von Neumann they dismissed it as impossible.
There may be reasons to believe that Google copied Apple, but the 'lack of hardware' or the 'implausible coincidence' arguments hold no water.
and if that's wrong? it made IOS affordable to many who could not afford Apple's expensively designed hardware. It seems to me that Apple and Apple users are happy to keep information and the information age from the disadvantaged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoebetech
Should Star Trek sue Apple for stealing their ideas or is it because Apple got to patent it first?
I think you all should read Toffler's "The Third Wave." Apple and AT&T are very much 2nd wave companies.
... and yet... a Third Wave company like Google is being supported by Second Wave companies like HTC, Apple, Samsung etc... without them Google is dead.
This isn't about when Google decided to enter the phone industry; this is about Google stealing Apples innovative features/design.
Google's innocence rests on a claim that they developed these features/designs independently from Apple, but to suppose that would be to suppose that Google was writing software to run on hardware that did not exist outside of Apple's labs.
Google has to be able to prove they had prior art in order to suggest that they either developed independently or before Apple, and they apparently aren't able to produce it. That suggest to me that their claims are spurious.
Comments
Are you an out of work employee from Psystar...
and if that's wrong? it made IOS affordable to many who could not afford Apple's expensively designed hardware. It seems to me that Apple and Apple users are happy to keep information and the information age from the disadvantaged.
I'm sure Acer would be more than happy to create IOS tablets but Apple has a monopoly on their software and hardware.
...So? Apple does not have to grant a license if they don't want to. Acer is in an industry where innovation is king... and they are not innovating. Sounds an awful lot like they have a fatal flaw in their business model.
Are you an out of work employee from Psystar...
RIght?! Some posters make such blatantly incorrect and asinine comments that it's pointless to even try to have civil conversation with them. I do wonder how these people get along in others in person with such stupid comments.
...So? Apple does not have to grant a license if they don't want to. Acer is in an industry where innovation is king... and they are not innovating. Sounds an awful lot like they have a fatal flaw in their business model.
It's fruitless to using logic and common sense to argue fair trade when your opponent doesn't believe in a free market system.
and if that's wrong? it made IOS affordable to many who could not afford Apple's expensively designed hardware. It seems to me that Apple and Apple users are happy to keep information and the information age from the disadvantaged.
Acer will help you...
I think you all should read Toffler's "The Third Wave." Apple and AT&T are very much 2nd wave companies.
That counts as invoking Godwin's Law.
It's fruitless to using logic and common sense to argue fair trade when your opponent doesn't believe in a free market system.
You do have to love the idea that Apple is inexplicably hoarding what is apparently a naturally occurring resource-- their software-- and should therefore be cool with public minded entities making that software more generally available by sticking it on cheap commodity hardware. Because otherwise the poor will be sad.
Not sure what role things like Android or Windows play in this scenario-- punishment for not having more money? The badlands that they build Indian Reservations on after Apple hogged all the good real estate?
As to it being impossible that Google would create software that couldn't run on anything that existed, that's silly. MS has done that plenty of times - that's what emulators are for. You can be quite sure that Apple had the iPhone version of iOS running on emulation long before they had any hardware that could run it natively.
So, using emulators, Google developed an OS for hardware that didn't exist, and coincidentally Apple created almost exactly the same software along with the needed hardware. Sorry, thats too much of a coincidence.
They had no plans to produce a phone, and of course they'd deny rumors about what their actual plans were as much as possible. Apple's denied several things that actually were in the works. But there's also no way that Apple was unaware that Google had plans for a mobile OS. My personal feeling is that Apple/Steve Jobs wanted to keep Google close to make sure they knew what they were up to. That's why Schmidt was invited to the board. IMO, it's was Apple's idea to mine Google, not the other way around.
If you read the timeline posted again here, I think it may be clearer:
http://searchengineland.com/gphone-t...timeline-10996
If you want to act as Google defender/apologist, that's fine, but you appear to be trying to talk yourself into the idea that the iPhone copied Android, or that Apple only decided to enter the phone business once they realized that Google was going to. At that point you've kind of crossed a line from "apologist" to "fantasist."
That counts as invoking Godwin's Law.
Toffler... not Jones.
http://www.slipperybrick.com/2008/01/star-trek-gadgets/
Except ownership in the patent world is simply never that clear. There can be many reasons why the patent is invalid or inapplicable. This is why Apple chooses to fight so many infringement cases against it - not because it wants to 'steal'. Google can make the same case in many of these instances.
This is why the law doesn't class infringing patents as theft.
Isn't whether we talk about this in terms of theft basically irrelevant? The real issue is this: I as corporation A (Apple) have technologies which I have patented and I believe that those patents are valid and enforceable. I have the absolute right as the patent holder to set the terms under which you may use my invention, and I have the right to totally bar you from using it, at my discretion. Your right extends only to litigating to invalidate my patent - you don't get to choose to ignore it because you don't like it, and that is basically what some of the people on this thread are arguing that Apple should do.
So, using emulators, Google developed an OS for hardware that didn't exist, and coincidentally Apple created almost exactly the same software along with the needed hardware. Sorry, thats too much of a coincidence.
It's not really that outrageous a coincidence. The multitouch displays had been publicly demonstrated back in 2006 I believe. Smartphones using keypads had been around running various different OSes. Innovation frequently occurs simultaneously or nearly so - because innovation is driven by what exists already. Newton & Leibnitz simultaneously inventing calculus is the classic example.
The first maser was built by Townes in America in 1953, independently of the theoretical work being done in the Soviet Union by Prokhorov and Basov. The maser was FAR more radical a concept than the touchscreen smartphone, when Townes described it to contemporaries such as Einstein and Von Neumann they dismissed it as impossible.
There may be reasons to believe that Google copied Apple, but the 'lack of hardware' or the 'implausible coincidence' arguments hold no water.
and if that's wrong? it made IOS affordable to many who could not afford Apple's expensively designed hardware. It seems to me that Apple and Apple users are happy to keep information and the information age from the disadvantaged.
Should Star Trek sue Apple for stealing their ideas or is it because Apple got to patent it first?
http://www.slipperybrick.com/2008/01/star-trek-gadgets/
Wow. He was just joking, but you actually DID work for Shyster (Psystar), didn't you?
I think you all should read Toffler's "The Third Wave." Apple and AT&T are very much 2nd wave companies.
... and yet... a Third Wave company like Google is being supported by Second Wave companies like HTC, Apple, Samsung etc... without them Google is dead.
Should Star Trek sue Apple for stealing their ideas or is it because Apple got to patent it first?
http://www.slipperybrick.com/2008/01/star-trek-gadgets/
No no no, silly... Star Trek stole its ideas from Chester Gould... and he in turn from Gross...
This isn't about when Google decided to enter the phone industry; this is about Google stealing Apples innovative features/design.
Google's innocence rests on a claim that they developed these features/designs independently from Apple, but to suppose that would be to suppose that Google was writing software to run on hardware that did not exist outside of Apple's labs.
Google has to be able to prove they had prior art in order to suggest that they either developed independently or before Apple, and they apparently aren't able to produce it. That suggest to me that their claims are spurious.