The other companies could use another way to open the devices like Android 4 face detection. (love how you can open the phones with a photo).
Swipe upwards. Swipe sideways.
But the other companies are so un innovative that they have to use the exact same gesture.
Use stylus and hard keyboards. You know: the stuff before iPhone.
BTW. Isn't it strange that 9 Android vendors pays protection fee's to MSFT? 5-15 dollar per device. Why should they do that if they did not know that they are breaking Apple patents?
(I would love to find out how some Android vendors don't have to pay protection fees, like old Sony Ericsson)
By your logic, why did Apple copy a windows mobile device manufacturer skin with swipe to unlock? why didn't they do something totally new and unique? See how pointless that line of logic is? It's about as useful as people screaming "first!" in the comment sections of articles. no one cares.
And it's not the exact same process on android. For one thing, Android allows your to mute sound by swiping in the opposite direction (stock 2.0-2.3) and before this it was a swipe down to unlock (and it remains this way with HTC)
As for licensing. That's kinda how the patent system is intended to work. you make something, then others pay you so they can use it.
Doesn't matter that the FRAND patent wasn't contested in court. They'll still find themselves on the end of an investigation by the EC if they continue with this crap. The fact it was used will be enough for the EC to have a word with them about it.
I'm no shining example of anything, and I don't give a hoot about the height of any bar. I call things as I see them. I am sure I am occasionally wrong. But I'm also sure that I have not engaged in xenophobic behaviour on this site. But clearly you and your clique do engage and indeed relish in it.
I have never told anyone not to return because their views oppose mine. I make commentary, sometimes with wicked sarcasm, about people's words and observations, but do not mark them with sophomoric labels or encourage others to banish them. Most importantly, I do not live under the delusion that using Apple products confers on me the same brilliance embedded in the design of the products themselves. Instead, I believe that Apple does some good things and also makes many missteps. Just because this is an Apple-oriented site does not mean the missteps cannot be criticized or mocked.
I guess I shouldn't have sugar coated it. My bad. Since you occasionally employ wicked sarcasm I'm sure you can take it straight. I was calling you a hypocrite. Physician heal thyself.
I'm assuming you have some medical training since I recently got your best medical opinion on the topic of metaphors making this particular proverb quite appropriate.
Wow can they do that? Sounds like absolute power has gone to their heads. I don't know what a web search proves, I mean, I can search for "moon landing hoax" and get lots of articles, but that doesn't make it any more true...
All we really have to go on is the names of the alleged authors. "Daniel"? Sounds like a made up name. "Slash Lane", OTOH sounds like a perfectly credible name for a real person. As is "The Situation", and "I.P. Freely".
Doesn't matter that the FRAND patent wasn't contested in court. They'll still find themselves on the end of an investigation by the EC if they continue with this crap. The fact it was used will be enough for the EC to have a word with them about it.
From what I have read Apple isn't contestng the FRAND patents themselves but it is contesting the actual llcensing fee amounts, claiming that the licensing fees they are being offered are much higher than the amounts being paid by other manufacturers which would be in violationof FRAND. It is illegal to use FRAND patent fees as technological blackmail.
How it actually is: German court grants injunction against Apple for infringement of Motorola patents
Yeah, because you know, Apple "allowed" the court to make that decision.
Perhaps some reading lessons are in order. The headline doesn't say "allowed the court." And a competitor in a given game or struggle can in fact allow an opponent to win without having to control the judges, right? I don't see any inaccuracy with how the headline worded.
My guess is that his cites to original source material, along with the cogent analysis he provides, each lend him sufficient credence.
The clear and concise writing style helps too - he presents close and complex questions with great clarity.
Quite an accomplishment for a man who has undergone no formal training, eh?
That is simply wrong. His analyses are amateurish and based on guesswork. He cites only to one document of the original material and he lacks the training and the background on the case to understand it. He took the one citation (which someone apparently forwarded to him, so you don't actually know if he ever saw the original German court order) and made extensive guesses as to Apple's motives for not making a response. He has no insight into Apple's strategies and he has no knowledge of what an injunction means in Germany against an Apple entity which (some reports are now indicating) has little to do with sales of Apple products in that country, and he has no experience with German court appeals.
You have confused clarity with simplistic thinking, eh?
AppleInsider bases a majority of their lawsuit stories on re-posted Mueller blog entries because historically they tend to spin things in ways that favor Apple.
But since Apple was awarded their slide-to-lock patent, and Microsoft is both an apparent infringer and a client of Mr. Mueller, his reporting style is now more mixed.
Most of the regulars here have defended Mueller against criticisms from GatorGuy and others, but now that his client obligations compel him to alter his editorial stance the winds here are shifting:
When his opinions favored Apple, he was "insightful" and "the most experienced patent blogger on the web", but now that his opinions are less one-sided he's simply "unqualified".
I guess I shouldn't have sugar coated it. My bad. Since you occasionally employ wicked sarcasm I'm sure you can take it straight. I was calling you a hypocrite. Physician heal thyself.
I'm assuming you have some medical training since I recently got your best medical opinion on the topic of metaphors making this particular proverb quite appropriate.
A hypocrite? Indeed I am one. But who isn't? He who claims not to be one is automatically committing hypocrisy.
For the label *hypocrite* to apply to me in this instance, however, I would have had to participate in the same type of cliquish, xenophobic behaviour that I criticized. I have never labeled someone as a troll nor have I insinuated that anyone didn't belong here because they have anti-Apple views. It you can identify where I have done it, I would gladly wear this particular hat of hypocrisy. If you can't, then ...
So, impress us with your impressively knowledgeable knowledge of FRAND!
Good question, or rather, fair challenge. But here's the thing, I prefer to comment mostly only when I know something well. My *knowledge* of FRAND is no more than anyone else here - i.e. I read about it here and there. For me, that's insufficient foundation to use it as an argument to defeat someone else's point. But I appreciate everyone has their bar set differently.
If you visit Florian Mueller's FOSS website and view his background, there is no mention of training in patent practice in any country. He only asserts that he is a "intellectual property activist-turned-analyst". He is not listed on the US Patent Office's registry of patent attorneys and patent agents (a legal requirement for US patent practitioners) and there is no evidence on his blog that he claims any legal training or licensure at all in either the US or in Europe. He has not listed himself on the EPO's list of professional representatives. There is no evidence on his blog that he has ever worked for a law firm in any capacity. Does this character have any training or experience at all that would qualify him to interpret the complex German patent laws and the German appeals process? Why do the news media give this bozo any credence at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe
My guess is that his cites to original source material, along with the cogent analysis he provides, each lend him sufficient credence.
The clear and concise writing style helps too - he presents close and complex questions with great clarity.
Quite an accomplishment for a man who has undergone no formal training, eh?
In addition to thorough research and easy-to-read writing style, he has a strong history in the software IP scene. He campaigned against software patents in Europe in the early 2000's, and is given credit for defeating a EU directive to consider allowing such patents. For this effort, he was once recognized as one of the *most influential* people in the intellectual property scene. Most of this info can be found on Wikipedia. But it's quite enlightening to go to his website nosoftwarepatents.com to learn about his views (and a bit of history) on software IP.
All to say, if he is a bozo, he is a bozo with serious street creds when it comes to the topic of IP.
As for whether the so-called MMI injunction affects Apple sales in Germany, he has actually explained it better than anyone else so far. But you might have missed it because he has updated his post on this topic.
A hypocrite? Indeed I am one. But who isn't? He who claims not to be one is automatically committing hypocrisy.
For the label *hypocrite* to apply to me in this instance, however, I would have had to participate in the same type of cliquish behaviour that I criticized. If you can identify where I have done it, I would gladly wear the hat of hypocrisy. If you can't, then ...
Indeed you are one? Most people try and avoid hypocrisy. You're embracing your inner hypocrite? Very interesting.
Maybe I did make a mistake. In your original response to me I thought you were making an appeal to my better nature.
Edit: I see you edited in the charge of xenophobe on your previous post. Even if I was being unfair to him( and I really don't think I was) xenophobe is a very poor choice of words. You should clearly spend more time with a dictionary.
I don't know why there's this a priori assumption that Apple's only infringements occur when they refuse to pay FRAND royalties. A growing numbers of their legal loses involve non-FRAND patents.
No assumption being made here. But there was a question asked that nobody answered. Is it ok to use FRAND patents in that way? I am assuming that the answers I am seeing means that people do not believe they should be. Fair Reasonable and Non Discriminatory patents should be just that.
He has done no thorough research. Don't be silly. You know he's just a bozo who has set up a blog. As for street cred-- that's laughable. What matters is if he has courtroom creds. But in truth he has no credentials and no knowledge of either Apple's strategies or of how the court system in Germany works. Deny that.
Ok. I'll deny it. And provide as much evidence to back up my claim as you. None.
In addition to thorough research and easy-to-read writing style, he has a strong history in the software IP scene. He campaigned against software patents in Europe in the early 2000's, and is given credit for defeating a EU directive to consider allowing such patents. For this effort, he was once recognized as one of the *most influential* people in the intellectual property scene. Most of this info can be found on Wikipedia. But it's quite enlightening to go to his website nosoftwarepatents.com to learn about his views (and a bit of history) on software IP.
All to say, if he is a bozo, he is a bozo with serious street creds when it comes to the topic of IP.
As for whether the so-called MMI injunction affects Apple sales in Germany, he has actually explained it better than anyone else so far. But you might have missed it because he has updated his post on this topic.
He has done no thorough research. Don't be silly. You know he's just a bozo who has set up a blog. As for street cred-- that's laughable. What matters is if he has courtroom creds. But in truth he has no credentials and no knowledge of either Apple's strategies or of how the court system in Germany works. Deny that.
A hypocrite? Indeed I am one. But who isn't? He who claims not to be one is automatically committing hypocrisy.
For the label *hypocrite* to apply to me in this instance, however, I would have had to participate in the same type of cliquish, xenophobic behaviour that I criticized. I have never labeled someone as a troll nor have I insinuated that anyone didn't belong here because they have anti-Apple views. It you can identify where I have done it, I would gladly wear this particular hat of hypocrisy. If you can't, then ...
"I am repeating myself, but you guys sound like high school girls"-Stelligent
"I make commentary, sometimes with wicked sarcasm, about people's words and observations, but do not mark them with sophomoric labels"-Stelligent
That my friend is hypocrisy.
Wear that hat gladly now.
And your sarcasm isnt anywhere near wicked. It's bland.
by having this injunction served against them, they can demonstrate anti-competitive activity and go after google.
a booty twap.
You mean like apple has done with injunctions to eliminate competition? And fosspatents said only one patent looks to be FRAND patent, meaning there is the other one that is not. So how is that different than apple?
Comments
It's amusing that people toss "FRAND" around here as if they really know the significance. What an impressively knowledgeable group!
So, impress us with your impressively knowledgeable knowledge of FRAND!
Who cares if Apple have the patent.
The other companies could use another way to open the devices like Android 4 face detection. (love how you can open the phones with a photo).
Swipe upwards. Swipe sideways.
But the other companies are so un innovative that they have to use the exact same gesture.
Use stylus and hard keyboards. You know: the stuff before iPhone.
BTW. Isn't it strange that 9 Android vendors pays protection fee's to MSFT? 5-15 dollar per device. Why should they do that if they did not know that they are breaking Apple patents?
(I would love to find out how some Android vendors don't have to pay protection fees, like old Sony Ericsson)
By your logic, why did Apple copy a windows mobile device manufacturer skin with swipe to unlock? why didn't they do something totally new and unique? See how pointless that line of logic is? It's about as useful as people screaming "first!" in the comment sections of articles. no one cares.
And it's not the exact same process on android. For one thing, Android allows your to mute sound by swiping in the opposite direction (stock 2.0-2.3) and before this it was a swipe down to unlock (and it remains this way with HTC)
As for licensing. That's kinda how the patent system is intended to work. you make something, then others pay you so they can use it.
Wasn't contested in court...
Doesn't matter that the FRAND patent wasn't contested in court. They'll still find themselves on the end of an investigation by the EC if they continue with this crap. The fact it was used will be enough for the EC to have a word with them about it.
I'm no shining example of anything, and I don't give a hoot about the height of any bar. I call things as I see them. I am sure I am occasionally wrong. But I'm also sure that I have not engaged in xenophobic behaviour on this site. But clearly you and your clique do engage and indeed relish in it.
I have never told anyone not to return because their views oppose mine. I make commentary, sometimes with wicked sarcasm, about people's words and observations, but do not mark them with sophomoric labels or encourage others to banish them. Most importantly, I do not live under the delusion that using Apple products confers on me the same brilliance embedded in the design of the products themselves. Instead, I believe that Apple does some good things and also makes many missteps. Just because this is an Apple-oriented site does not mean the missteps cannot be criticized or mocked.
I guess I shouldn't have sugar coated it. My bad. Since you occasionally employ wicked sarcasm I'm sure you can take it straight. I was calling you a hypocrite. Physician heal thyself.
I'm assuming you have some medical training since I recently got your best medical opinion on the topic of metaphors
The rules that govern the forums may not apply to authors.
And to be fair, I have no first-hand knowledge of these alleged multiple identities, but others across the web have written about them extensively:
http://www.google.com/search?q=dilger+sock+puppet
Wow can they do that? Sounds like absolute power has gone to their heads. I don't know what a web search proves, I mean, I can search for "moon landing hoax" and get lots of articles, but that doesn't make it any more true...
All we really have to go on is the names of the alleged authors. "Daniel"? Sounds like a made up name. "Slash Lane", OTOH sounds like a perfectly credible name for a real person. As is "The Situation", and "I.P. Freely".
Doesn't matter that the FRAND patent wasn't contested in court. They'll still find themselves on the end of an investigation by the EC if they continue with this crap. The fact it was used will be enough for the EC to have a word with them about it.
From what I have read Apple isn't contestng the FRAND patents themselves but it is contesting the actual llcensing fee amounts, claiming that the licensing fees they are being offered are much higher than the amounts being paid by other manufacturers which would be in violationof FRAND. It is illegal to use FRAND patent fees as technological blackmail.
Gotta love how this article is titles.
How it actually is: German court grants injunction against Apple for infringement of Motorola patents
Yeah, because you know, Apple "allowed" the court to make that decision.
Perhaps some reading lessons are in order. The headline doesn't say "allowed the court." And a competitor in a given game or struggle can in fact allow an opponent to win without having to control the judges, right? I don't see any inaccuracy with how the headline worded.
My guess is that his cites to original source material, along with the cogent analysis he provides, each lend him sufficient credence.
The clear and concise writing style helps too - he presents close and complex questions with great clarity.
Quite an accomplishment for a man who has undergone no formal training, eh?
That is simply wrong. His analyses are amateurish and based on guesswork. He cites only to one document of the original material and he lacks the training and the background on the case to understand it. He took the one citation (which someone apparently forwarded to him, so you don't actually know if he ever saw the original German court order) and made extensive guesses as to Apple's motives for not making a response. He has no insight into Apple's strategies and he has no knowledge of what an injunction means in Germany against an Apple entity which (some reports are now indicating) has little to do with sales of Apple products in that country, and he has no experience with German court appeals.
You have confused clarity with simplistic thinking, eh?
AppleInsider bases a majority of their lawsuit stories on re-posted Mueller blog entries because historically they tend to spin things in ways that favor Apple.
But since Apple was awarded their slide-to-lock patent, and Microsoft is both an apparent infringer and a client of Mr. Mueller, his reporting style is now more mixed.
Most of the regulars here have defended Mueller against criticisms from GatorGuy and others, but now that his client obligations compel him to alter his editorial stance the winds here are shifting:
When his opinions favored Apple, he was "insightful" and "the most experienced patent blogger on the web", but now that his opinions are less one-sided he's simply "unqualified".
Welcome to AppleInsider.
Good comments. Thanks.
I guess I shouldn't have sugar coated it. My bad. Since you occasionally employ wicked sarcasm I'm sure you can take it straight. I was calling you a hypocrite. Physician heal thyself.
I'm assuming you have some medical training since I recently got your best medical opinion on the topic of metaphors
A hypocrite? Indeed I am one. But who isn't? He who claims not to be one is automatically committing hypocrisy.
For the label *hypocrite* to apply to me in this instance, however, I would have had to participate in the same type of cliquish, xenophobic behaviour that I criticized. I have never labeled someone as a troll nor have I insinuated that anyone didn't belong here because they have anti-Apple views. It you can identify where I have done it, I would gladly wear this particular hat of hypocrisy. If you can't, then ...
So, impress us with your impressively knowledgeable knowledge of FRAND!
Good question, or rather, fair challenge. But here's the thing, I prefer to comment mostly only when I know something well. My *knowledge* of FRAND is no more than anyone else here - i.e. I read about it here and there. For me, that's insufficient foundation to use it as an argument to defeat someone else's point. But I appreciate everyone has their bar set differently.
If you visit Florian Mueller's FOSS website and view his background, there is no mention of training in patent practice in any country. He only asserts that he is a "intellectual property activist-turned-analyst". He is not listed on the US Patent Office's registry of patent attorneys and patent agents (a legal requirement for US patent practitioners) and there is no evidence on his blog that he claims any legal training or licensure at all in either the US or in Europe. He has not listed himself on the EPO's list of professional representatives. There is no evidence on his blog that he has ever worked for a law firm in any capacity. Does this character have any training or experience at all that would qualify him to interpret the complex German patent laws and the German appeals process? Why do the news media give this bozo any credence at all?
My guess is that his cites to original source material, along with the cogent analysis he provides, each lend him sufficient credence.
The clear and concise writing style helps too - he presents close and complex questions with great clarity.
Quite an accomplishment for a man who has undergone no formal training, eh?
In addition to thorough research and easy-to-read writing style, he has a strong history in the software IP scene. He campaigned against software patents in Europe in the early 2000's, and is given credit for defeating a EU directive to consider allowing such patents. For this effort, he was once recognized as one of the *most influential* people in the intellectual property scene. Most of this info can be found on Wikipedia. But it's quite enlightening to go to his website nosoftwarepatents.com to learn about his views (and a bit of history) on software IP.
All to say, if he is a bozo, he is a bozo with serious street creds when it comes to the topic of IP.
As for whether the so-called MMI injunction affects Apple sales in Germany, he has actually explained it better than anyone else so far. But you might have missed it because he has updated his post on this topic.
A hypocrite? Indeed I am one. But who isn't? He who claims not to be one is automatically committing hypocrisy.
For the label *hypocrite* to apply to me in this instance, however, I would have had to participate in the same type of cliquish behaviour that I criticized. If you can identify where I have done it, I would gladly wear the hat of hypocrisy. If you can't, then ...
Indeed you are one? Most people try and avoid hypocrisy. You're embracing your inner hypocrite? Very interesting.
Maybe I did make a mistake. In your original response to me I thought you were making an appeal to my better nature.
Edit: I see you edited in the charge of xenophobe on your previous post. Even if I was being unfair to him( and I really don't think I was) xenophobe is a very poor choice of words. You should clearly spend more time with a dictionary.
It's amusing that people toss "FRAND" around here as if they really know the significance. What an impressively knowledgeable group!
Apple has raised the FRAND argument against only one of the two patents in question, and only in a different jurisdiction (US):
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...ently-won.html
I don't know why there's this a priori assumption that Apple's only infringements occur when they refuse to pay FRAND royalties. A growing numbers of their legal loses involve non-FRAND patents.
No assumption being made here. But there was a question asked that nobody answered. Is it ok to use FRAND patents in that way? I am assuming that the answers I am seeing means that people do not believe they should be. Fair Reasonable and Non Discriminatory patents should be just that.
He has done no thorough research. Don't be silly. You know he's just a bozo who has set up a blog. As for street cred-- that's laughable. What matters is if he has courtroom creds. But in truth he has no credentials and no knowledge of either Apple's strategies or of how the court system in Germany works. Deny that.
Ok. I'll deny it. And provide as much evidence to back up my claim as you. None.
In addition to thorough research and easy-to-read writing style, he has a strong history in the software IP scene. He campaigned against software patents in Europe in the early 2000's, and is given credit for defeating a EU directive to consider allowing such patents. For this effort, he was once recognized as one of the *most influential* people in the intellectual property scene. Most of this info can be found on Wikipedia. But it's quite enlightening to go to his website nosoftwarepatents.com to learn about his views (and a bit of history) on software IP.
All to say, if he is a bozo, he is a bozo with serious street creds when it comes to the topic of IP.
As for whether the so-called MMI injunction affects Apple sales in Germany, he has actually explained it better than anyone else so far. But you might have missed it because he has updated his post on this topic.
He has done no thorough research. Don't be silly. You know he's just a bozo who has set up a blog. As for street cred-- that's laughable. What matters is if he has courtroom creds. But in truth he has no credentials and no knowledge of either Apple's strategies or of how the court system in Germany works. Deny that.
A hypocrite? Indeed I am one. But who isn't? He who claims not to be one is automatically committing hypocrisy.
For the label *hypocrite* to apply to me in this instance, however, I would have had to participate in the same type of cliquish, xenophobic behaviour that I criticized. I have never labeled someone as a troll nor have I insinuated that anyone didn't belong here because they have anti-Apple views. It you can identify where I have done it, I would gladly wear this particular hat of hypocrisy. If you can't, then ...
"I am repeating myself, but you guys sound like high school girls"-Stelligent
"I make commentary, sometimes with wicked sarcasm, about people's words and observations, but do not mark them with sophomoric labels"-Stelligent
That my friend is hypocrisy.
Wear that hat gladly now.
And your sarcasm isnt anywhere near wicked. It's bland.
It's a Twap!
by having this injunction served against them, they can demonstrate anti-competitive activity and go after google.
a booty twap.
You mean like apple has done with injunctions to eliminate competition? And fosspatents said only one patent looks to be FRAND patent, meaning there is the other one that is not. So how is that different than apple?