This nonsense will continue as long as Apple keeps swinging the patent bat. At some point it will bite back then we can all move on with new innovative ideas.
I'm tired of all these patent articles. It's all the same. X sues Y. Y finds dirt on X. X & Y settle. Everyone loses except the lawyers.
Can't we get back to wild speculation of iPhone5? Super HD... Holographic... Telepathy? You know, the fun stuff.
So when Google assists HTC it's all <jimbo accent>"dey took arr jobs"</jimbo>. But when Apple does all their manufacturing in China, it's business as usual? For a "global philosopher", you're rather narrow-minded.
Jobs said Apple got patents to protect iPhone when he introduced iPhone to the world in 2007. It was all recorded in video. Because of this, I think Jobs and team already examined pretty much whether iPhone violated any patents.
Jobs said Apple got patents to protect iPhone when he introduced iPhone to the world in 2007. It was all recorded in video. Because of this, I think Jobs and team already examined pretty much whether iPhone violated any patents.
And yet they still LOST patent lawsuits over the iphone. Furthermore, they refused to pay patent fees to Nokia, Samsung, HTC (I think), and Motorola. Patents that those companies asserted against apple and then apple didn't question if they were violating them, just claimed that they were Frand.
EDIT: But that's besides the point. The point is that this lawsuit arms race (a cold war that just turned hot) benefits NO ONE but the lawyers. The system is broken because it (currently) punishes standardization and the companies that develop it, and it makes the barrier to entry for new companies insurmountable.
And yet they still LOST patent lawsuits over the iphone. Furthermore, they refused to pay patent fees to Nokia, Samsung, HTC (I think), and Motorola. Patents that those companies asserted against apple and then apple didn't question if they were violating them, just claimed that they were Frand.
EDIT: But that's besides the point. The point is that this lawsuit arms race (a cold war that just turned hot) benefits NO ONE but the lawyers. The system is broken because it (currently) punishes standardization and the companies that develop it, and it makes the barrier to entry for new companies insurmountable.
According to your logic, Apple should not even do anything to the Chinese copycats. HTC and Samsung and Google are not any better than the Chinese copycats. They are just bigger and richer.
So what happens to the actions Motorola launched against Apple?
Given that they no longer own some of the patents they are suing Apple over.
This could set a precedent of continuous transfer of patent ownership to a string of shelf companies, which could be used to launch a continuous stream of lawsuits.
It got ugly the second Apple decided to sue everyone (well, everyone who they view of as a threat) instead of working with them behind the deals.
When they sued HTC they officially filed the suit and had a press release about it before anyone even contacted HTC.
This whole thing reads more like a cat fight than anything else.
Nokia and Motorola sued Apple first so I guess you should direct your ire to those companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
And yet they still LOST patent lawsuits over the iphone. Furthermore, they refused to pay patent fees to Nokia, Samsung, HTC (I think), and Motorola. Patents that those companies asserted against apple and then apple didn't question if they were violating them, just claimed that they were Frand.
EDIT: But that's besides the point. The point is that this lawsuit arms race (a cold war that just turned hot) benefits NO ONE but the lawyers. The system is broken because it (currently) punishes standardization and the companies that develop it, and it makes the barrier to entry for new companies insurmountable.
Apple didn't refuse to pay patent fees to Nokia. It refused to pay over FRAND rates. As for those other companies, I guess we will see after the dust has cleared because Apple's position is that those patents are either FRAND (Motorola and Samsung) or invalid (HTC).
A US company going out of its way to assist a non-US company to compate against a US company for the sake of selling more advertisements. Couldn't imagine that given the state of teh US economy and high un-employmebnt rate that this news will go down well if it becomes highly publicised.
Americans have never been patriotic / nationalistic due to the makeup of the country. I am sure Taiwanese Americans would stand up for Google in this case. The bigger point is that I should have became a patent lawyer rather than an accountant. I would have had crazy job security right now.
Look it's Menno, he is back to defend Android again. Surprise, surprise. I'm waiting for more of his wondrous tales of how awesome his tab is and why he is glad he bought one instead of an iPad. Oh joy.
So whenever Apple sues them they are just going to pass arround patents to protect each other? Is that legal? What about infringing prior to obtaining the patents?
Look it's Menno, he is back to defend Android again. Surprise, surprise. I'm waiting for more of his wondrous tales of how awesome his tab is and why he is glad he bought one instead of an iPad. Oh joy.
Haven't defended Android in this thread yet.
I also only mention my Tab when we're talking about the trade dress argument, and I only say I like it when people said that no one outside of korea would willingly buy one. As for why I didn't get an ipad, that's simple. Why would I buy a device that's incompatible with the rest of my ecosystem? It's like someone with everything apple picking up a Boxee Box instead of an Apple TV so they can get netflix on their TV
Nokia and Motorola sued Apple first so I guess you should direct your ire to those companies.
Motorola sued themselves over Apple patents first. Nokia sued over lost revenue from frand patents.
Quote:
Apple didn't refuse to pay patent fees to Nokia. It refused to pay over FRAND rates. As for those other companies, I guess we will see after the dust has cleared because Apple's position is that those patents are either FRAND (Motorola and Samsung) or invalid (HTC).
They still created the product and sold it (and profited from it) without licensing the patents. Looks a lot like "refusing" to pay to me.
According to your logic, Apple should not even do anything to the Chinese copycats. HTC and Samsung and Google are not any better than the Chinese copycats. They are just bigger and richer.
No, they're not copycats. and if you honestly think that ANYONE would pick up an HTC phone thinking it was an iphone.. you've never seen an HTC phone. Copycats in china are using the apple logo and the apple name to sell their products. Those other two companies aren't doing either.
The difference with HTC and Samsung is that they're actually gaining market share.
And what I'm saying is that fighting like this over patents (specifically stupid ones such as slide to unlock) benefits NO ONE but lawyers.
No, they're not copycats. and if you honestly think that ANYONE would pick up an HTC phone thinking it was an iphone.. you've never seen an HTC phone. Copycats in china are using the apple logo and the apple name to sell their products. Those other two companies aren't doing either.
The difference with HTC and Samsung is that they're actually gaining market share.
And what I'm saying is that fighting like this over patents (specifically stupid ones such as slide to unlock) benefits NO ONE but lawyers.
Do you honestly think Android OS never copy catted iOS?
Do you honestly think Android OS never copy catted iOS?
I think that if you believe that "copy catting" is somehow a "dirty" concept in tech you haven't paid attention to the history of tech. Companies looking at what their competitors are doing and adopting things that work and making them their own is about as old as the concept of trade and bartering. Yes, there is a point where one company copies too much without changing it, such as Touchwiz 3 and the Galaxy S line, but EVERY company adopts things from others.
Apple's Multi-tasking is basically a modified version of what Android does (it follows the same basic policies as Android's implementation but with stricter rules about WHAT can run in the background (certain type of data only).
Apple's new notification system pulled features from Android, WebOS, and from Jailbreak Devs.
Apple released iMessage, a program that borrows heavily from the idea of BBM, but ads the awesome ability to automatically detect if the person you're messaging is an iOS5 user so you don't have to switch between it and a "standard" texting program.
This adaptation does NOT make Apple less innovative or their products any less amazing. As I said, this is how business works. The problem is now companies are patenting EVERYTHING because they're convinced that every new idea should be their exclusively for 15 YEARS. Realistically, companies were patenting everything because other companies were patenting everything and it became almost a cold war where these companies built up massive war chest so that they could continue releasing new products without fear of a lawsuit.
A company defending against counterfeiters is fine, and it should be done because knock-offs like that can destroy a brand image. But Apple's going after companies because they let the user unlock a touchscreen device using the touchscreen. (slide to unlock) And now everyone is suing everyone else over patents that range from pointless to patents that are "well duh" type things (as in, everyone uses it everywhere already)
All this does is waste money paying lawyers and creates an insanely high barrier to entry for new companies. There are so many broad patents out there that it's practically impossible to create anything that does violate at least a few (a smartphone is over a quarter million at least). It's telling that when Apple first started suing HTC, the commentary wasn't on how valid the patents were, but rather how HTC was at a disadvantage because they had so few patents to countersue apple with.
How is a system based off of the assumption that everyone is violating patents (and that's what gives them their value) a productive one?
Comments
I'm tired of all these patent articles. It's all the same. X sues Y. Y finds dirt on X. X & Y settle. Everyone loses except the lawyers.
Can't we get back to wild speculation of iPhone5? Super HD... Holographic... Telepathy? You know, the fun stuff.
So when Google assists HTC it's all <jimbo accent>"dey took arr jobs"</jimbo>. But when Apple does all their manufacturing in China, it's business as usual? For a "global philosopher", you're rather narrow-minded.
Jobs said Apple got patents to protect iPhone when he introduced iPhone to the world in 2007. It was all recorded in video. Because of this, I think Jobs and team already examined pretty much whether iPhone violated any patents.
a.k.a. Google: "Here's some bullets for your gun!, we don't want to get hurt."
Is it me, or is this just getting ugly?
a.k.a. Google: "Here's some bullets for your gun!, we don't want to get hurt."
It got ugly the second Apple decided to sue everyone (well, everyone who they view of as a threat) instead of working with them behind the deals.
When they sued HTC they officially filed the suit and had a press release about it before anyone even contacted HTC.
This whole thing reads more like a cat fight than anything else.
Jobs said Apple got patents to protect iPhone when he introduced iPhone to the world in 2007. It was all recorded in video. Because of this, I think Jobs and team already examined pretty much whether iPhone violated any patents.
And yet they still LOST patent lawsuits over the iphone. Furthermore, they refused to pay patent fees to Nokia, Samsung, HTC (I think), and Motorola. Patents that those companies asserted against apple and then apple didn't question if they were violating them, just claimed that they were Frand.
EDIT: But that's besides the point. The point is that this lawsuit arms race (a cold war that just turned hot) benefits NO ONE but the lawyers. The system is broken because it (currently) punishes standardization and the companies that develop it, and it makes the barrier to entry for new companies insurmountable.
And yet they still LOST patent lawsuits over the iphone. Furthermore, they refused to pay patent fees to Nokia, Samsung, HTC (I think), and Motorola. Patents that those companies asserted against apple and then apple didn't question if they were violating them, just claimed that they were Frand.
EDIT: But that's besides the point. The point is that this lawsuit arms race (a cold war that just turned hot) benefits NO ONE but the lawyers. The system is broken because it (currently) punishes standardization and the companies that develop it, and it makes the barrier to entry for new companies insurmountable.
According to your logic, Apple should not even do anything to the Chinese copycats. HTC and Samsung and Google are not any better than the Chinese copycats. They are just bigger and richer.
And yet they still LOST patent lawsuits over the iPhone.
So enlighten us as to which case Apple lost?
Given that none of these cases have been heard, yet.
Given that they no longer own some of the patents they are suing Apple over.
This could set a precedent of continuous transfer of patent ownership to a string of shelf companies, which could be used to launch a continuous stream of lawsuits.
It got ugly the second Apple decided to sue everyone (well, everyone who they view of as a threat) instead of working with them behind the deals.
When they sued HTC they officially filed the suit and had a press release about it before anyone even contacted HTC.
This whole thing reads more like a cat fight than anything else.
Nokia and Motorola sued Apple first so I guess you should direct your ire to those companies.
And yet they still LOST patent lawsuits over the iphone. Furthermore, they refused to pay patent fees to Nokia, Samsung, HTC (I think), and Motorola. Patents that those companies asserted against apple and then apple didn't question if they were violating them, just claimed that they were Frand.
EDIT: But that's besides the point. The point is that this lawsuit arms race (a cold war that just turned hot) benefits NO ONE but the lawyers. The system is broken because it (currently) punishes standardization and the companies that develop it, and it makes the barrier to entry for new companies insurmountable.
Apple didn't refuse to pay patent fees to Nokia. It refused to pay over FRAND rates. As for those other companies, I guess we will see after the dust has cleared because Apple's position is that those patents are either FRAND (Motorola and Samsung) or invalid (HTC).
I still can't understand why Apple Board has not sued this scumbag.
A US company going out of its way to assist a non-US company to compate against a US company for the sake of selling more advertisements. Couldn't imagine that given the state of teh US economy and high un-employmebnt rate that this news will go down well if it becomes highly publicised.
Americans have never been patriotic / nationalistic due to the makeup of the country. I am sure Taiwanese Americans would stand up for Google in this case. The bigger point is that I should have became a patent lawyer rather than an accountant. I would have had crazy job security right now.
So enlighten us as to which case Apple lost?
Given that none of these cases have been heard, yet.
Look up Apple V Creative (technically over ipod)
And look at Apple losing the Coverflow lawsuit
Look it's Menno, he is back to defend Android again. Surprise, surprise. I'm waiting for more of his wondrous tales of how awesome his tab is and why he is glad he bought one instead of an iPad. Oh joy.
Haven't defended Android in this thread yet.
I also only mention my Tab when we're talking about the trade dress argument, and I only say I like it when people said that no one outside of korea would willingly buy one. As for why I didn't get an ipad, that's simple. Why would I buy a device that's incompatible with the rest of my ecosystem? It's like someone with everything apple picking up a Boxee Box instead of an Apple TV so they can get netflix on their TV
Nokia and Motorola sued Apple first so I guess you should direct your ire to those companies.
Motorola sued themselves over Apple patents first. Nokia sued over lost revenue from frand patents.
Apple didn't refuse to pay patent fees to Nokia. It refused to pay over FRAND rates. As for those other companies, I guess we will see after the dust has cleared because Apple's position is that those patents are either FRAND (Motorola and Samsung) or invalid (HTC).
They still created the product and sold it (and profited from it) without licensing the patents. Looks a lot like "refusing" to pay to me.
According to your logic, Apple should not even do anything to the Chinese copycats. HTC and Samsung and Google are not any better than the Chinese copycats. They are just bigger and richer.
No, they're not copycats. and if you honestly think that ANYONE would pick up an HTC phone thinking it was an iphone.. you've never seen an HTC phone. Copycats in china are using the apple logo and the apple name to sell their products. Those other two companies aren't doing either.
The difference with HTC and Samsung is that they're actually gaining market share.
And what I'm saying is that fighting like this over patents (specifically stupid ones such as slide to unlock) benefits NO ONE but lawyers.
No, they're not copycats. and if you honestly think that ANYONE would pick up an HTC phone thinking it was an iphone.. you've never seen an HTC phone. Copycats in china are using the apple logo and the apple name to sell their products. Those other two companies aren't doing either.
The difference with HTC and Samsung is that they're actually gaining market share.
And what I'm saying is that fighting like this over patents (specifically stupid ones such as slide to unlock) benefits NO ONE but lawyers.
Do you honestly think Android OS never copy catted iOS?
Do you honestly think Android OS never copy catted iOS?
I think that if you believe that "copy catting" is somehow a "dirty" concept in tech you haven't paid attention to the history of tech. Companies looking at what their competitors are doing and adopting things that work and making them their own is about as old as the concept of trade and bartering. Yes, there is a point where one company copies too much without changing it, such as Touchwiz 3 and the Galaxy S line, but EVERY company adopts things from others.
Apple's Multi-tasking is basically a modified version of what Android does (it follows the same basic policies as Android's implementation but with stricter rules about WHAT can run in the background (certain type of data only).
Apple's new notification system pulled features from Android, WebOS, and from Jailbreak Devs.
Apple released iMessage, a program that borrows heavily from the idea of BBM, but ads the awesome ability to automatically detect if the person you're messaging is an iOS5 user so you don't have to switch between it and a "standard" texting program.
This adaptation does NOT make Apple less innovative or their products any less amazing. As I said, this is how business works. The problem is now companies are patenting EVERYTHING because they're convinced that every new idea should be their exclusively for 15 YEARS. Realistically, companies were patenting everything because other companies were patenting everything and it became almost a cold war where these companies built up massive war chest so that they could continue releasing new products without fear of a lawsuit.
A company defending against counterfeiters is fine, and it should be done because knock-offs like that can destroy a brand image. But Apple's going after companies because they let the user unlock a touchscreen device using the touchscreen. (slide to unlock) And now everyone is suing everyone else over patents that range from pointless to patents that are "well duh" type things (as in, everyone uses it everywhere already)
All this does is waste money paying lawyers and creates an insanely high barrier to entry for new companies. There are so many broad patents out there that it's practically impossible to create anything that does violate at least a few (a smartphone is over a quarter million at least). It's telling that when Apple first started suing HTC, the commentary wasn't on how valid the patents were, but rather how HTC was at a disadvantage because they had so few patents to countersue apple with.
How is a system based off of the assumption that everyone is violating patents (and that's what gives them their value) a productive one?
Motorola sued themselves over Apple patents first. Nokia sued over lost revenue from frand patents.
They still created the product and sold it (and profited from it) without licensing the patents. Looks a lot like "refusing" to pay to me.
Try reading and researching the facts before making a comment that shows how much you really don't know.