ITC to review one patent in HTC complaint against Apple

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 41
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    Apple didnt "invent" anything. All of the ideas they've used were already on the market or as prior art.



    That's the most ridiculous statement yet. ALL of Apple's ideas? Wow.
  • Reply 22 of 41
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,893member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by elroth View Post


    No, that's not your point at all. Apple developed that system, patented it and is using it. Rubin, though he knew it was patented and developed by Apple, used it for Android anyway. He knowingly used a patented process that he had no right to. That's much different than developing something on your own and finding out later that someone had patented some small part of it, which is your original point.



    You have apparently created your own argument, as that had nothing to do with anything I wrote, nor the point I made in the very first post.
  • Reply 23 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    You have apparently created your own argument, as that had nothing to do with anything I wrote, nor the point I made in the very first post.



    The Strawman Cometh
  • Reply 24 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Radjin View Post


    Apple would go after Google if they sold the software, but they give it away. Android was bought and modified to compete with the iPhone. It copies almost every part of the iOS.



    I was comparing the two just the other day, and it shocked me how closely Android copied the iOS notification system.



    Those guys are blatent ripoffs!
  • Reply 25 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    Apple didnt "invent" anything. All of the ideas they've used were already on the market or as prior art.



    Dont be so full of yourself.





    We are talking about DEVELOPING technology -- you just throwing out this blanket statement is nonsense.



    Apple usually creates Unique designs, and new processes, and when it doesn't, it licenses them. Sure there is "prior art" on almost every technology -- but it depends on the Pedigree.



    >> In this case the "inventor" of Android was a developer from Apple. Then we've got a Google exec on the board of Apple at the time, who did NOT remove himself due to conflict of interest.



    So let's look at the entire framework here; Google develops a phone in secret, using concepts and likely code developed by a person while they are working for Apple, and meanwhile they've got an exec who gets top level info on marketing, strategy, IP purchases and development.



    Then Samsung, on top of the OTHER things Google has kind of "just used" from others, creates an interface and device that echos the iPhone.



    .... this isn't just "Oh, we made a touchscreen interface -- what's unique about that?" You've got IP that was developed while snooping Apple and you've got a non-obvious, non-unique interface on top of that.



    WebOS and Microsoft Mobile, at least, did their own thing. It's not inevitable that things look and function like an iPhone -- it's just kind of Me-Too and Lazy.







    There are too many lawsuits on mobile tech right now, and most of it is to LIMIT competition. However, in a few of Apple's lawsuits (but not all), it's actually about making DUPLICATE products and NOT innovating.



    And Google totally stabbed Jobs in the back on the phone development -- it's not even close to ethical.
  • Reply 26 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post


    We are talking about DEVELOPING technology -- you just throwing out this blanket statement is nonsense.



    Apple usually creates Unique designs, and new processes, and when it doesn't, it licenses them. Sure there is "prior art" on almost every technology -- but it depends on the Pedigree.



    >> In this case the "inventor" of Android was a developer from Apple. Then we've got a Google exec on the board of Apple at the time, who did NOT remove himself due to conflict of interest.



    So let's look at the entire framework here; Google develops a phone in secret, using concepts and likely code developed by a person while they are working for Apple, and meanwhile they've got an exec who gets top level info on marketing, strategy, IP purchases and development.



    Then Samsung, on top of the OTHER things Google has kind of "just used" from others, creates an interface and device that echos the iPhone.



    .... this isn't just "Oh, we made a touchscreen interface -- what's unique about that?" You've got IP that was developed while snooping Apple and you've got a non-obvious, non-unique interface on top of that.



    WebOS and Microsoft Mobile, at least, did their own thing. It's not inevitable that things look and function like an iPhone -- it's just kind of Me-Too and Lazy.







    There are too many lawsuits on mobile tech right now, and most of it is to LIMIT competition. However, in a few of Apple's lawsuits (but not all), it's actually about making DUPLICATE products and NOT innovating.



    And Google totally stabbed Jobs in the back on the phone development -- it's not even close to ethical.



    So another "Apple and/or Steve Jobs are/was retarded in regards to Schmidt on the board despite the fact that Google buying Android was public knowledge at the time he was appointed"



    You really do not see how bad your little theory makes your favorite company look right?



    Also one function (just one) exists on Android (and everything else in existence today including this forum) not any code from Apple. Get your facts right.



    And Google working on a phone was far from secret.
  • Reply 27 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by elroth View Post


    That's the most ridiculous statement yet. ALL of Apple's ideas? Wow.



    We MIGHT be able to debate this with an example.



    >> I'm tired of the "The stole it all from Xerox" when comparing what Microsoft did. It's the old; everything is equal argument and it isn't even CLOSE to the truth.



    Jobs PAID Xerox for a tour of their technology lab.



    The designers were happy to have SOMEONE look at what they were doing, as Xerox had no intent on using it, nor did it further develop these ideas.



    Jobs didn't go in with a floppy drive -- just smart people taking notes -- IDEAS are not patentable.



    Next, the interface for the Lisa, and original Apples, were designed by a lady who, if I remember correctly, never was on the tour.



    If you look at what next had produced, it looks nothing like what Apple produced -- it looks a lot more like the Unix based X-Windows to me. But it's been a while.



    And again, no Code, no IDE's, no algorithms as far as I know changed hands.



    The ideas?

    Using a mouse to control a cursor.

    Local networking.

    Icons to represent files.



    When Apple created the Lisa, Apples and Macs -- they developed all their own technology. They had to figure out a way to "reference" objects in memory to the code or images they represented (creating what was a called a double-dererferenced pointer). They used a Supercomputer, I believe to try and optimize and squeeze their OS down. The created things like Quickdraw to make images on the screen, using very relatively primitive components.



    The accomplishment of creating a GUI and making it easy to use, when other companies were using ASCII art and command line is nothing short of a miracle. 128K for an OS, and the rest on ROM, then an application and files fitting onto an 800k floppy.



    >> And what did Bill Gates create in comparison? He stole CP/M from another man by hiring a hacker/developer. He created his IDE while being an Apple developer and taking advantage of the fact that Jobs hadn't bothered to copyright or patent much of anything -- and mostly ported these ideas and concepts to sit on top of DOS (the other thing he stole).



    Then there was networking IP stolen from Novell. Object linking and embedding from another company now a footnote. Video For Windows 1.4d had parts that were a binary match for Quicktime for Windows - and in that ONE case they got caught. Microsoft is NOT the exception -- they are the rule this day in business.



    It's not like I'm religious about Apple -- nor do I think they haven't been occasionally BORROWING heavily from shareware developers at times. But they at least seem to innovate the interface, and develop rather than steal, and they license when possible. They aren't saints and they are no longer chumps.





    >> But let's not treat everything as equal. Samsung was a privileged manufacturer for the iPhone -- getting reference designs and learning a LOT about Apple's technology. THen they produce a phone that the average consumer can't tell a part from an iPhone.



    And google develops their phone while having a privileged seat on Apple's board, and while they have a developer on the inside feeding them tech.



    That's not kosher.
  • Reply 28 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    So another "Apple and/or Steve Jobs are/was retarded in regards to Schmidt on the board despite the fact that Google buying Android was public knowledge at the time he was appointed"



    You really do not see how bad your little theory makes your favorite company look right?



    Also one function (just one) exists on Android (and everything else in existence today including this forum) not any code from Apple. Get your facts right.



    And Google working on a phone was far from secret.





    1st, it's not MY little company - taking a position isn't evidence of someone who is automatically myopic. I want Android to be successful -- but I recognize that it did NOT have a clean room origin, nor was Google acting in good faith with Apple.



    ?I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple?s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong,? Jobs said. ?I?m going to destroy Android, because it?s a stolen product. I?m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.?

    -- that doesn't sound like Jobs REALLY knew what Google intended -- perhaps there was a gentleman's agreement, or their mutual friends said they were doing one thing while doing another. But I doubt Job's sentiment came out of nowhere -- he didn't even freak out like this when Gates took things from Apple's IDE to make Windows.

    GRAND THEFT ANDROID



    I'm not an expert at what went on at the time Google was developing Android, but I'm pretty sure that if we looked into it a bit, we will see that Android probably benefitted from having eyes and ears in Apple's boardroom.



    There is a LOT of techniques, that seem to bounce back and forth and iPhones now do some things that Androids do -- like multitasking and copying the BETTER alert system from Android -- but it's also very likely that Apple had a long list of "nice features" but started with battery life and interface first.





    I didn't say they directly stole the OS -- it's completely a different platform entirely -- and it's what gives Apple a competitive advantage. The ONE unique thing Google really did, and it's their achilles heel;

    "

    Oracle seeking an injunction against Android as an ?incompatible clone of Java?

    "

    >> Oracle's lawsuit may be the worst. Android is based on someone else's JAVA tech, and then it doesn't leave it compatible. it's the same kind of Embrace and Extend that Microsoft did to JAVA in the first place.



    Oracle may NOT be the best home for JAVA as a standard -- but Google isn't doing the platform any favors, and they are making open source proprietary -- kind of against the EULA.



    >> If ANY company brings Android to it's knees -- it's likely Oracle. I hope that doesn't happen, but it's going to RAISE the cost of creating an Android phone.





    Then there is this; http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/0...ple/#more-4595

    <I>AMD filed a motion with the US International Trade Commission proposing that it dismiss the S3 case against Apple because ?the patents-in-suit allegedly belong to ATI rather than S3G ? and ATI has no intention of suing Apple over them,? notes FOSS Patents blogger Florian Mueller.</I>



    $300 Million for patents that S3 didn't even own.





    >> HTC tried to sue for injunction, but unlike Apple and the Samsung case -- they didn't try to Apple to license from them, and they probably don't have a leg to stand on.





    Google is turning into another Microsoft, and other than search and their Android phone -- don't seem to have much focus. I would LOVE for them to get their act together, but to do that, it might require them to innovate.
  • Reply 29 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post


    - cut for space -



    You need to fix some of your facts. Or at least fact check.



    The mouse, cursor, icons (and folders) existed prior to Apple.



    Apple never mentioned anything about Schmidt stealing, being a mole, etc...so why you all insist on it is shocking. Do you know something Apple doesn't?



    Android wasn't built in secret. Everyone knew since 2005 they were getting into the phone business.



    Rubin stopped working for Apple in the 90s.
  • Reply 30 of 41
    davidwdavidw Posts: 975member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    You need to fix some of your facts. Or at least fact check.



    The mouse, cursor, icons (and folders) existed prior to Apple.



    The idea of the mouse, cursor, icons (and folders) existed prior to Apple. But it's not the idea that is patentable. What's patentable is the method you use to implement those ideas.



    For example, when Doug Engelbart came up with the concept of a mechanical device to control a cursor on a computer screen back in the mid sixties, he built his first "mouse" using a small box with two rollers. One for the x and another for the y axis. And his mouse (and cursor) can only move along those axis.



    PARC, in the seventies, built a mouse that used a laser that read a precisely etched grid pattern on a mouse pad as it moved across it. Thus the mouse and cursor was able to move diagonally. But it cost over $300 to build.



    Apple, in the eighties, came up with the "mouses ball" to move rollers on the x and y axis. Apple mouse can also move the cursor diagonally across the screen without the need for a special grid pattern mouse pad. And it met Steve Jobs requirements. That it must cost under $15 to build and you can use it by moving it on top for your blue jeans. This was the most common mouse used on all computers until the late nineties, when the laser mouse became cheap enough to build. I'm not sure if Apple ever took out a patent for their mouse design. When people say that Apple "invented" the mouse, they're talking about that mouse that everyone, in the eighties and nineties, used with their computers. The one with the mouse ball in it. No one is saying Apple came up with the original idea of the "mouse". Nearly everyone knows that credit belongs to Doug Engelbart. Except for those that thinks PARC "invented" the mouse.



    The same hold true for icons and folders. The software needed to create those is what patentable. And Apple did it one way and PARC did it another. Apple software could run on a $2500 computer. PARC software needed a $16,000 computer.
  • Reply 31 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    **snip** not going to argue regarding Fake_William who's all over the place **



    Rubin stopped working for Apple in the 90s.



    Too bad that a key patent was developed while Andy Rubin was working for Apple and that this patent is at the heart of the ITC complaint that's going to be handed down tomorrow (if it doesn't get pushed back again). All the patent experts seem to think a ban on HTC products is inevitable.



    Just because touchscreen smartphones are a very recent product doesn't mean that underlying features/functions of the OS itself haven't been thought of many years ago.
  • Reply 32 of 41
    majjomajjo Posts: 574member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    So another "Apple and/or Steve Jobs are/was retarded in regards to Schmidt on the board despite the fact that Google buying Android was public knowledge at the time he was appointed"



    You really do not see how bad your little theory makes your favorite company look right?



    Also one function (just one) exists on Android (and everything else in existence today including this forum) not any code from Apple. Get your facts right.



    And Google working on a phone was far from secret.



    hindsight is 20/20. Maybe Apple didn't put 2 and 2 together, or maybe they really missed all those signs.
  • Reply 33 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    The idea of the mouse, cursor, icons (and folders) existed prior to Apple. But it's not the idea that is patentable. What's patentable is the method you use to implement those ideas.



    For example, when Doug Engelbart came up with the concept of a mechanical device to control a cursor on a computer screen back in the mid sixties, he built his first "mouse" using a small box with two rollers. One for the x and another for the y axis. And his mouse (and cursor) can only move along those axis.



    PARC, in the seventies, built a mouse that used a laser that read a precisely etched grid pattern on a mouse pad as it moved across it. Thus the mouse and cursor was able to move diagonally. But it cost over $300 to build.



    Apple, in the eighties, came up with the "mouses ball" to move rollers on the x and y axis. Apple mouse can also move the cursor diagonally across the screen without the need for a special grid pattern mouse pad. And it met Steve Jobs requirements. That it must cost under $15 to build and you can use it by moving it on top for your blue jeans. This was the most common mouse used on all computers until the late nineties, when the laser mouse became cheap enough to build. I'm not sure if Apple ever took out a patent for their mouse design. When people say that Apple "invented" the mouse, they're talking about that mouse that everyone, in the eighties and nineties, used with their computers. The one with the mouse ball in it. No one is saying Apple came up with the original idea of the "mouse". Nearly everyone knows that credit belongs to Doug Engelbart. Except for those that thinks PARC "invented" the mouse.



    The same hold true for icons and folders. The software needed to create those is what patentable. And Apple did it one way and PARC did it another. Apple software could run on a $2500 computer. PARC software needed a $16,000 computer.



    All you are doing is detailing the evolution of these things...and I'm glad you know it. Most people seem to feel there was DOS-like computers ONLY and then boom, Apple came through with the GUI.



    Apple deserves a hell of a lot of credit but too many people give them ALL of the credit.
  • Reply 34 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by majjo View Post


    hindsight is 20/20. Maybe Apple didn't put 2 and 2 together, or maybe they really missed all those signs.



    Or maybe (most likely) it didn't happen as so many seem to feel it did.
  • Reply 35 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


    Too bad that a key patent was developed while Andy Rubin was working for Apple and that this patent is at the heart of the ITC complaint that's going to be handed down tomorrow (if it doesn't get pushed back again). All the patent experts seem to think a ban on HTC products is inevitable.



    Just because touchscreen smartphones are a very recent product doesn't mean that underlying features/functions of the OS itself haven't been thought of many years ago.



    The point was he made it sound like Rubin was working on Android while at Apple and was feeding code to his own company...this is not true.



    And yea...we'll see tomorrow how the world feels about giving Apple a monopoly on something all web browsers, most forum software, and most modern software use.



    http://www.wellguesstheybetterremove...linkedthis.com



    [email protected]



    The reason Android uses auto linking is because EVERY modern web browser at the time of it's inception and most internet software used it...not because Rubin was at Apple.



    Also this is why I do not like software patents...now if Android's code is 100% Apple's code then yes, ban it or penalize Google and demand an alteration...but in this case it is more of an idea thing...they patented the idea.
  • Reply 36 of 41
    davidwdavidw Posts: 975member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    All you are doing is detailing the evolution of these things...and I'm glad you know it. Most people seem to feel there was DOS-like computers ONLY and then boom, Apple came through with the GUI.



    That's because what most people saw in the market, before the Mac, was only DOS-like computers. How many people had access to PARC? Besides Steve Jobs and Apple, how many people outside of PARC, that you have read about, ever saw or heard about the Xerox Alto computer running a GUI? Most people don't care about a computer that uses a GUI and mouse that is sitting in some lab some where, that's never going to be available (or affordable) to the average consumer. Even if it's the first of it's kind.



    Thomas Edison was not the first person to come up with the idea of a device to record and reproduce sound. Some 50 years before, some one made a device that recorded sound on to a piece of paper covered in ashes. The etched lines made by this device, consisting of a needle attached to a diaphragm, resembled a record groove. But he had no way of playing back that sound. And some 6 months before Edison introduced his phonograph, some guy sent to the French patent office, a sketch outlining a device that could record and play back the recorded sound. However, this guy didn't have the skill, nor the desire, to build the device he came up with. And when Edison introduced his cylinder phonograph, there were people that said that he should not be credited with inventing the phonograph, there was prior art. But most people ignore the prior art and give Edison his due credit. Not only because he was the first to build a working model of such a device, but more importantly, because his device was available to the average consumer. (Even though is was some what expensive for the average consumer at the time it came out).



    If Edison had kept his cylinder phonograph confined to his lab because he saw no need for such a device or that it was too expensive to market to the consumer, then most people might be saying that it was Emile Berliner that invented the phonograph. Berliner is the person that came up with the flat disc record used on Victor Talking Machines, Victrolas, Gram-o-phones, and all record players to date. (It was a vast improvement sound wise and had other advantages over the wax cylinder used by Edison.) That's because, if Edison didn't bring his phonograph to market, most people would only envision a record player playing a flat disc. Not the wax cylinder that was used by Edison for his first phonograph. BTW- "phonograph" was a Trademark own by Edison at the time. But it became generic for all record players.



    People tend to think that the inventor is the person (or company) that first bring the product to market. Not the first to patent such a product that there's a prototype of and it's sitting in a lab some where, while they try to figure out what to use it for. It's just like how many people think that Henry Ford invented the automobile for no other reason than because he made them affordable (with his assembly line process) for the average consumer to own. Many people think that Kodak invented photographic film. They didn't. Kodak invented photographic film on a roll, that the average consumer can easily use in their roll film camera. But hardly any one would think that Kodak invented the first megapixal digital camera. But they did.





    Quote:

    App[le deserves a hell of a lot of credit but too many people give them ALL of the credit.



    It's more like too many people giving Apple NONE of the credit.
  • Reply 37 of 41
    - I'll address the large portion of your post separately -
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post




    It's more like too many people giving Apple NONE of the credit.



    I don't recall anyone or any large number of people giving Apple no credit...only an idiot would do that...and being that there are quite a few idiots I guess I could see that happening.



    But no...Apple, with Steve at the helm is responsible for advancing tech at a faster rate and for reinvigorating existing markets
  • Reply 38 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    That's because what most people saw in the market, before the Mac, was only DOS-like computers. How many people had access to PARC? Besides Steve Jobs and Apple, how many people outside of PARC, that you have read about, ever saw or heard about the Xerox Alto computer running a GUI? Most people don't care about a computer that uses a GUI and mouse that is sitting in some lab some where, that's never going to be available (or affordable) to the average consumer. Even if it's the first of it's kind.



    Thomas Edison was not the first person to come up with the idea of a device to record and reproduce sound. Some 50 years before, some one made a device that recorded sound on to a piece of paper covered in ashes. The etched lines made by this device, consisting of a needle attached to a diaphragm, resembled a record groove. But he had no way of playing back that sound. And some 6 months before Edison introduced his phonograph, some guy sent to the French patent office, a sketch outlining a device that could record and play back the recorded sound. However, this guy didn't have the skill, nor the desire, to build the device he came up with. And when Edison introduced his cylinder phonograph, there were people that said that he should not be credited with inventing the phonograph, there was prior art. But most people ignore the prior art and give Edison his due credit. Not only because he was the first to build a working model of such a device, but more importantly, because his device was available to the average consumer. (Even though is was some what expensive for the average consumer at the time it came out).



    If Edison had kept his cylinder phonograph confined to his lab because he saw no need for such a device or that it was too expensive to market to the consumer, then most people might be saying that it was Emile Berliner that invented the phonograph. Berliner is the person that came up with the flat disc record used on Victor Talking Machines, Victrolas, Gram-o-phones, and all record players to date. (It was a vast improvement sound wise and had other advantages over the wax cylinder used by Edison.) That's because, if Edison didn't bring his phonograph to market, most people would only envision a record player playing a flat disc. Not the wax cylinder that was used by Edison for his first phonograph. BTW- "phonograph" was a Trademark own by Edison at the time. But it became generic for all record players.



    People tend to think that the inventor is the person (or company) that first bring the product to market. Not the first to patent such a product that there's a prototype of and it's sitting in a lab some where, while they try to figure out what to use it for. It's just like how many people think that Henry Ford invented the automobile for no other reason than because he made them affordable (with his assembly line process) for the average consumer to own. Many people think that Kodak invented photographic film. They didn't. Kodak invented photographic film on a roll, that the average consumer can easily use in their roll film camera. But hardly any one would think that Kodak invented the first megapixal digital camera. But they did.




    I don't think we disagree...in fact I'm sure we don't. Not even sure if we are debating at this point. lol



    edit: yea I read back...and we don't seem to disagree at all. It may sound like I'm downplaying Apple's achievements and innovations but that is most likely an unintentional result of me feeling the need to counter those who act as if we'd be living in the stone-age without Apple.





    Back to topic my issues with software patents are as follows:



    This is an old analogy but it's easy to follow.



    Say you created the mousetrap...the plank of wood with the springloaded trap/switch. Specific design, works wonderfully...you patent it...you own THAT mousetrap...anyone wants to build your mousetrap better get your permission, pay, or be prepared for the penalties.



    I come around, and I build a different mousetrap...the end game is the same...it traps mice...but the way it gets there isn't....maybe my springloaded trap is triggered a different way...perhaps it zigs, whereas yours zagged...now there is no denying that my mousetrap was directly inspired by your mousetrap existing...but my mousetrap is NOT your mousetrap....we can both patent our separate ideas...and share the market.



    Now let's say you code "an apparatus in which a springloaded trap is set and a trigger is baited in which a mouse and/or other rodent is lured into said trap by said bait and causes the spring mechanism to release thereby trapping and/or killing the mouse."



    That can cover any possible design or method for trapping and/or killing mice...as long as it uses a spring and some bait.



    So essentially with that coded patent you didn't patent YOUR mousetrap...you patented the idea of trapping and/or killing mice using a springloaded trap...so even if mine is not like yours...somehow I am in violation.





    Like I've said before...if the code is exactly the same in HTC (Android) and Apple's version of auto-hyperlink then by all means demand royalties, penalty, and a change in code.



    But if the codes are completely different yet the end result is the same...why should Apple get to sue?



    If you build a vacuum one way...and I build it another...both being vacuums...both having the same end game...but both built differently...should he who invented the first type of vacuum be able to sue? Obviously not...but in software it's a lot murkier.
  • Reply 39 of 41
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,893member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    And yea...we'll see tomorrow how the world feels about giving Apple a monopoly on something all web browsers, most forum software, and most modern software use.



    http://www.wellguesstheybetterremove...linkedthis.com



    [email protected]



    The reason Android uses auto linking is because EVERY modern web browser at the time of it's inception and most internet software used it...not because Rubin was at Apple.



    Also this is why I do not like software patents...now if Android's code is 100% Apple's code then yes, ban it or penalize Google and demand an alteration...but in this case it is more of an idea thing...they patented the idea.



    It's not any real issue based on today's decision. The ITC Judge affirmed an extremely narrow victory for Apple which amounted to nothing at all in all likelihood, and won't go into effect until April in any case.
  • Reply 40 of 41
    Well, Apple won. Some of HTC's stuff will be banned in the US in 2012.
Sign In or Register to comment.