If Apple only focused it's efforts with these patents towards the blatant infringer (from here on out referred to as Samsung) then I'd have zero issues with it. Like almost every Android fansite griped when Touchwhiz 2.0 was first showcased "WTF? THEY ARE COPYING APPLE!!"
The problem comes when the Xooms, the Flyers, the HTC phones, etc are being treated with similar hostility despite the fact that these products not only don't infringe blatantly, they in some cases go out of their way to distance their looks from apple's.
But that's not enough...leading me to believe that there's more to it than "Ayo, Sammy boy, stop copying."
Good point. But I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that the only manufacturer that Apple is trying to enjoin in federal court (and in courts of other nations) is Samsung. The others as far as I know are federal and ITC cases that involve many claims and counterclaims that will take a long time to settle, and appear to be more a part of normal day-to-day competition between technology companies under our crazy patent system.
But seeking and getting an injunction, which can take effect in days or weeks rather than the years of normal cases, and which costs Samsung $$$$$ immediately, is going nuclear.
When you say "treated with similar hostility", do you mean by Apple, or by posters on forums like this?
both...though Apple seems to be going after the other companies less harshly...no doubt due to the fact that Samsung IS a copycat...whereas the others are possible infringers.
"A patent ( /ˈpætənt/ or /ˈpeɪtənt/) is a form of intellectual property. It consists of a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for the public disclosure of an invention."
"In Anglo-Saxon law, an exclusive right is a de facto, non-tangible prerogative existing in law (that is, the power or, in a wider sense, right) to perform an action or acquire a benefit and to permit or deny others the right to perform the same action or to acquire the same benefit. A "prerogative" is in effect an exclusive right. The term is restricted for use for official state or sovereign (i.e., constitutional) powers. Exclusive rights are a form of monopoly."
Indeed. And this has been the *understanding* in the telecom industry. I won't sue you for infringing my IP if you won't sue me. Or, here's $2 for your IP and please pay me back $2.25 for mine. Then you have the IBM model (now usurped by Microsoft) - you're violating one of our patents ... 2 weeks of discussion later - ok, so you might be able to defend yourself wrt that patent, but here are the other 2000 patents we think you might be infringing. How long do you want to spend arguing?
Two things changed the status quo. First, Apple doesn't play by implicit rules (they barely play by explicit rules). Second, Samsung has been excessive in their sincerest expression of flattery for Apple.
I'm sure you can agree with me on this...but it's hard to appear to be siding with Samsung by being against the claims from Apple isn't it?
Because I for one am absolutely NOT a fan of Samsung (thank "God" Google has a say over the Nexus Devices) but even so I do not believe ridiculous patents should be upheld as they set a bad precedent.
I'm sure you can agree with me on this...but it's hard to appear to be siding with Samsung by being against the claims from Apple isn't it?
Because I for one am absolutely NOT a fan of Samsung (thank "God" Google has a say over the Nexus Devices) but even so I do not believe ridiculous patents should be upheld as they set a bad precedent.
Do you mean to say that it's hard NOT to appear to be siding with Samsung by being against Apple claims?
I challenge you to show me one declaration by any judge that Apple invented multitouch. Otherwise, stop spouting lies or displaying ignorance.
Multitouch has been around since the days of the first Mac. Even Apple's version of multitouch was not first invented there. They acquired it.
OK, you are right. My apologies. Live and learn. My ignorance is now less. Thanks everyone for all your posts about this.
However (sorry to go on), it does appear that Apple has some relevant IP. They did patent something to do with multitouch in '07, as Steve said in his keynote ("and boy did we patent it!"), and are having some success in the courts in Oz, and now in USA.
And Foss seems to like Apple's chances - and he seems to know more than any of us...
Two things changed the status quo. First, Apple doesn't play by implicit rules (they barely play by explicit rules). Second, Samsung has been excessive in their sincerest expression of flattery for Apple.
That's an interesting perspective. Can you elaborate on the "not playing by the rules" bit? I guess I'm not fully aware of that aspect of the situation.
No question that tablets and notification systems, not to mention tablets with notification systems have been out there for a long time. So has multitouch.
And Apple did improve them.
But to say that Apple did not innovate or invent is either deliberately inflammatory or simply ignorant. In either scenario, you're an idiot.
way to argue dude.
being cynical without supporting your statements does not make you look awwwwwsome, you juvenile.
Both Tablets and Notification Systems were out there for long.
Apple did not innovate or invent, they simply improved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
No question that tablets and notification systems, not to mention tablets with notification systems have been out there for a long time. So has multitouch.
And Apple did improve them.
But to say that Apple did not innovate or invent is either deliberately inflammatory or simply ignorant. In either scenario, you're an idiot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist
way to argue dude.
being cynical without supporting your statements does not make you look awwwwwsome, you juvenile.
Cynical is perhaps the wrong word, but in any case, you may be taking too narrow a view. It would be unfair to say that in improving those things, Apple did not innovate and invent, and I think stelligent is saying that it diminishes your arguments by making that claim. Slightly paraphrased of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist
Again, my point was that Apple utilizes legal systems to get what they want (registering designs as patents rather than copyrights/trademarks because they know they are harder to obtain injunctions and damages), without giving up a shit. What a selfish bastard mindset?
Do you believe that other companies don't also use the legal system to their best advantage, or that Apple should not? That the obvious failings in the patent laws around the world that allow this type of claim should be magnanimously ignored by companies who might be in a position to use them? As in "we could have obtained legal protection against being copied, but we think the law is badly written so we chose not too"? Shareholders might regard that as somewhat negligent.
OK, you are right. My apologies. Live and learn. My ignorance is now less. Thanks everyone for all your posts about this.
However (sorry to go on), it does appear that Apple has some relevant IP. They did patent something to do with multitouch in '07, as Steve said in his keynote ("and boy did we patent it!"), and are having some success in the courts in Oz, and now in USA.
Indeed, they appear to have a dozen or more USA patents applied for, some of which have been granted, related to multitouch. Presumably they have similar portfolios in other international jurisdictions which permit software patents.
None of the so-far granted patents cover the principle of multi-touch in general. Rather, they deal with specific use-cases of ways in which objects in a graphical user interface react to various touch stimuli.
For example, one of the patents that Apple has had success with in the Netherlands, apparently has to do with using a swiping gesture over a photograph in an album to move on to the next or previous photo. The patent doesn't cover swiping gestures in general -- it only covers one specific way in which a photo album specifically would react to a swiping gesture -- by switching photos.
Samsung already plans to circumvent that patent, on its way to getting around the Netherlands injunction, by releasing a software update that presumably uses a different mechanism to switch between photos.
I think people will be singing tunes when Samsung decides to enforce its wireless patents. "That's not fair. Thats communication, not a design patent! Those idiots."
Comments
If Apple only focused it's efforts with these patents towards the blatant infringer (from here on out referred to as Samsung) then I'd have zero issues with it. Like almost every Android fansite griped when Touchwhiz 2.0 was first showcased "WTF? THEY ARE COPYING APPLE!!"
The problem comes when the Xooms, the Flyers, the HTC phones, etc are being treated with similar hostility despite the fact that these products not only don't infringe blatantly, they in some cases go out of their way to distance their looks from apple's.
But that's not enough...leading me to believe that there's more to it than "Ayo, Sammy boy, stop copying."
Good point. But I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that the only manufacturer that Apple is trying to enjoin in federal court (and in courts of other nations) is Samsung. The others as far as I know are federal and ITC cases that involve many claims and counterclaims that will take a long time to settle, and appear to be more a part of normal day-to-day competition between technology companies under our crazy patent system.
But seeking and getting an injunction, which can take effect in days or weeks rather than the years of normal cases, and which costs Samsung $$$$$ immediately, is going nuclear.
When you say "treated with similar hostility", do you mean by Apple, or by posters on forums like this?
both...though Apple seems to be going after the other companies less harshly...no doubt due to the fact that Samsung IS a copycat...whereas the others are possible infringers.
Did they look like iPhones?
If Samsung has slavishly copied the iPhone, then the others must resemble it too?
From Wikipedia:
"A patent ( /ˈpætənt/ or /ˈpeɪtənt/) is a form of intellectual property. It consists of a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for the public disclosure of an invention."
"In Anglo-Saxon law, an exclusive right is a de facto, non-tangible prerogative existing in law (that is, the power or, in a wider sense, right) to perform an action or acquire a benefit and to permit or deny others the right to perform the same action or to acquire the same benefit. A "prerogative" is in effect an exclusive right. The term is restricted for use for official state or sovereign (i.e., constitutional) powers. Exclusive rights are a form of monopoly."
Damn, you're right. You saying so must make it true.
Juvenile answer.
Where's your proof? Put up or shut up.
Indeed. And this has been the *understanding* in the telecom industry. I won't sue you for infringing my IP if you won't sue me. Or, here's $2 for your IP and please pay me back $2.25 for mine. Then you have the IBM model (now usurped by Microsoft) - you're violating one of our patents ... 2 weeks of discussion later - ok, so you might be able to defend yourself wrt that patent, but here are the other 2000 patents we think you might be infringing. How long do you want to spend arguing?
Two things changed the status quo. First, Apple doesn't play by implicit rules (they barely play by explicit rules). Second, Samsung has been excessive in their sincerest expression of flattery for Apple.
I'm sure you can agree with me on this...but it's hard to appear to be siding with Samsung by being against the claims from Apple isn't it?
Because I for one am absolutely NOT a fan of Samsung (thank "God" Google has a say over the Nexus Devices) but even so I do not believe ridiculous patents should be upheld as they set a bad precedent.
I'm still waiting for that proof....
I'm sure you can agree with me on this...but it's hard to appear to be siding with Samsung by being against the claims from Apple isn't it?
Because I for one am absolutely NOT a fan of Samsung (thank "God" Google has a say over the Nexus Devices) but even so I do not believe ridiculous patents should be upheld as they set a bad precedent.
Do you mean to say that it's hard NOT to appear to be siding with Samsung by being against Apple claims?
I'm still waiting for that proof....
Still waiting....
I'm still waiting for that proof....
What is a monopoly, dude?
What is a monopoly, dude?
What, you can't read, dude? Just type in a bunch of
What, you can't read, dude? Just type in a bunch of
You're boring. EOL.
I challenge you to show me one declaration by any judge that Apple invented multitouch. Otherwise, stop spouting lies or displaying ignorance.
Multitouch has been around since the days of the first Mac. Even Apple's version of multitouch was not first invented there. They acquired it.
OK, you are right. My apologies. Live and learn. My ignorance is now less. Thanks everyone for all your posts about this.
However (sorry to go on), it does appear that Apple has some relevant IP. They did patent something to do with multitouch in '07, as Steve said in his keynote ("and boy did we patent it!"), and are having some success in the courts in Oz, and now in USA.
And Foss seems to like Apple's chances - and he seems to know more than any of us...
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...e-to-shut.html
Two things changed the status quo. First, Apple doesn't play by implicit rules (they barely play by explicit rules). Second, Samsung has been excessive in their sincerest expression of flattery for Apple.
That's an interesting perspective. Can you elaborate on the "not playing by the rules" bit? I guess I'm not fully aware of that aspect of the situation.
If Samsung has slavishly copied the iPhone, then the others must resemble it too?
Of course. Silly of me to ask.
No question that tablets and notification systems, not to mention tablets with notification systems have been out there for a long time. So has multitouch.
And Apple did improve them.
But to say that Apple did not innovate or invent is either deliberately inflammatory or simply ignorant. In either scenario, you're an idiot.
way to argue dude.
being cynical without supporting your statements does not make you look awwwwwsome, you juvenile.
Both Tablets and Notification Systems were out there for long.
Apple did not innovate or invent, they simply improved.
No question that tablets and notification systems, not to mention tablets with notification systems have been out there for a long time. So has multitouch.
And Apple did improve them.
But to say that Apple did not innovate or invent is either deliberately inflammatory or simply ignorant. In either scenario, you're an idiot.
way to argue dude.
being cynical without supporting your statements does not make you look awwwwwsome, you juvenile.
Cynical is perhaps the wrong word, but in any case, you may be taking too narrow a view. It would be unfair to say that in improving those things, Apple did not innovate and invent, and I think stelligent is saying that it diminishes your arguments by making that claim. Slightly paraphrased of course.
Again, my point was that Apple utilizes legal systems to get what they want (registering designs as patents rather than copyrights/trademarks because they know they are harder to obtain injunctions and damages), without giving up a shit. What a selfish bastard mindset?
Do you believe that other companies don't also use the legal system to their best advantage, or that Apple should not? That the obvious failings in the patent laws around the world that allow this type of claim should be magnanimously ignored by companies who might be in a position to use them? As in "we could have obtained legal protection against being copied, but we think the law is badly written so we chose not too"? Shareholders might regard that as somewhat negligent.
OK, you are right. My apologies. Live and learn. My ignorance is now less. Thanks everyone for all your posts about this.
However (sorry to go on), it does appear that Apple has some relevant IP. They did patent something to do with multitouch in '07, as Steve said in his keynote ("and boy did we patent it!"), and are having some success in the courts in Oz, and now in USA.
Indeed, they appear to have a dozen or more USA patents applied for, some of which have been granted, related to multitouch. Presumably they have similar portfolios in other international jurisdictions which permit software patents.
None of the so-far granted patents cover the principle of multi-touch in general. Rather, they deal with specific use-cases of ways in which objects in a graphical user interface react to various touch stimuli.
For example, one of the patents that Apple has had success with in the Netherlands, apparently has to do with using a swiping gesture over a photograph in an album to move on to the next or previous photo. The patent doesn't cover swiping gestures in general -- it only covers one specific way in which a photo album specifically would react to a swiping gesture -- by switching photos.
Samsung already plans to circumvent that patent, on its way to getting around the Netherlands injunction, by releasing a software update that presumably uses a different mechanism to switch between photos.
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/t...014-1loez.html