That's like saying I copied the traditional mousetrap with my mousetrapper that vacuums mice into a cage because it is "an apparatus that baits and traps and/or kills mice"
A patent doesn't copy the idea or concept of trapping a mouse. A patent is for an invention, a specific thing, that traps a mouse. As such, there can be, and are, many patents to do that. That's true for every area.
But, there are times where there is no good way around a patent. In that case, unless that patent is required for the technology, in broad terms to function, it's tough for others. They can't use it unless the originator decides to license it, and they can't be forced to.
In the '50‘s, Honeywell invented the automatic camera strobe whereby the amount of light was regulated by the distance. A pretty simple thing. But back then, their way was the only practical way to do it. A cell measured the light, and a resistor (basically) drained the capacitor when the required amount of light had hit the subject. So simple, it seems obvious. But, of course, no one had thought of it except a couple of engineers within Honeywell, so, obviously, it wasn't obvious.
A number of other manufacturers decided to use this tech as Honeywell was siphoning off much of their business, so Honeywell sued, and won. That's the way it worked, back then, and now. Since that time, the patent expired, and newer tech has come up with much better ways of doing it that don't waste the current. But it took years.
These days, people think that everyone is entitled to what others come up with, and they want it NOW. Well, if you want it now, suck it up and buy that company's product. That's what people did with strobes back then. Honeywell got a lot of business from people who otherwise wouldn't have bought a Honeywell strobe.
The point is that there were other phones, be they smart phones or pdas with phone functionality that were touch screen long before the iPhone. And not just the iPaqs but many others.
The fact that Apple popularized the touch screen phone doesn't mean they invented them or that they didn't copy the idea from elsewhere. Many Apple fans seem to believe otherwise, or seem to think that Apple can copy ideas from others, but once they popularize the idea that it belongs to them exclusively.
The unfortunate part is that the patenting system is broken and allows overly broad patents or patenting of obvious things by deep pocketed companies that allows them to attempt to limit competition.
The fact is that Apple took existing ideas and popularized the concept. Once popularized the market for the devices expanded and they were no longer relegated to niche status. Then Android did the same thing, building off not only Apples ideas, but also those ideas which Apple built upon with the iPhone.
MULTI-TOUCH!!!
Besides the Apple Newton predates the iPaq by many years.
Samsung is an example and hypothetical, my future predicting skills need work. Sure many of these companies would love to have Apples business but A - Many of them would take months to get set up to produce what Apple may need if not years which would destroy Apple B - I am also talking about countries (China) that are not democratic and will do as they are told by their country. Apple is playing on a playground where there are rules and people are playing fair but if the time ever comes, those rules and fairness can quickly evaporate. Especially if say China feels Apple owns too much Chinese property or Apple is threatening China in some manner, China will crush them and no one is going to care except Apple. China makes everything, China also produces over 90% of the meterial needed for modern batteries and electronics. You think Apple has allot of money in the bank, China's bank account is insane. China is positioning itself to be the world power, I hate to admit that but the writing is on the wall and some petty company is not going to change that. Sure Apple is the most valued company in the world but that would change quickly if China got a wild hair and cut them off, all Apple production gets stopped, China pays the companies that are affected, everyone is happy except Apple. And it could be as simple as a pride thing, China may feel insulted by Apple slapping chinese companies around, China may decide to do a little of its own slapping, say a 6 month hold on all Apple products for inspection purposes?????
You keep bringing up Chinese companies, could you please name these Chinese companies Apple is suing?
the idea of a touch screen phone. Have you never heard of an iPaq? I was making calls on a touch screen iPaq in 2003. Funny, apple even copied naming convention from compaq.
Do you know the difference between a touch screen and the old screens which require a stylus? The iPac didn't use a touch screen.
In the '50?s, Honeywell invented the automatic camera strobe whereby the amount of light was regulated by the distance. A pretty simple thing. But back then, their way was the only practical way to do it. A cell measured the light, and a resistor (basically) drained the capacitor when the required amount of light had hit the subject. So simple, it seems obvious. But, of course, no one had thought of it except a couple of engineers within Honeywell, so, obviously, it wasn't obvious.
Yeah. No. This is not obvious, and is obviously patentable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
These days, people think that everyone is entitled to what others come up with, and they want it NOW. .
No, I don't believe that is what people think. I belive people think that, for example, trying to say a Galaxy Tab looks too much like a iPad is just an attempt to stifle legitimate competition.
I mean come on, Apple is copying Android as much as Android is copying Apple. If you don't see this you aren't being honest with yourself.
Microsoft is doing it and Apple should do so too. Apple won't be able to win every patent dispute but if they could get $10 for almost every Android handset that is money they could use to compete against Android with, win-win.
I'd say they are failing if you look at the total history of MS where they were and where they are now. Businesses are either improving, standing still or declining and by almost every metric MS doing really well at the last category.
Their growth has slowed down, so they are no longer considered a growth company. The slowdown will continue. But they are still doing well, by most metrics. They must divest themselves of things that are doing poorly and will never do well, such as search, and areas in which they shouldn't be, such as entertainment.
At some point, they will need to recognize that their business is business, and not consumer products. Some people poi t out that the XBox is on top now, but it's just 2% of their business, insignificant. They will never come close to regaining the $9 billion in losses it generated along with the rest of their entertainment division (now part of another division).
The same thing with Bing, though it's generating losses at a more rapid rate than entertainment ever did, with no chance of ever making a profit. They were very luck that Jerry Yang is such a poor businessman that he refused to sell Yahoo to Ms at such an inflated price. If that happened, Ms would be writing off billions in goodwill.
MS still has a lot of good years ahead. There's a reason for that. It's because software companies can rip off their customers, while hardware companies have a much harder time of it. I've always found it amusing that while Apple's 41% gross margin and their 24% net arouses calls of ripoff, but MS's 76% gross and 33% net doesn't.
Why are software companies allowed to overcharge so much without much complaint? They take less risk, and get much higher returns. If Ms didn't lose som much on other businesses, those margins would be even higher. It's those margins that allow them to take huge losses for years when other companies would have had to abandon the losing business years before.
This is really a use of monopoly profits to drive companies in other areas of business to their knees, though the courts don't recognize it as such.
It's this high margin that will allow them to hold on for a long while to come, and give them a chance to reorganize their business when they finally see they must.
And you have a right to think that. Doesn't make it right, but you have the right to think it.
That's obscenely subjective and erring on the side of totally wrong.
Let's see. Apple "didn't" have notifications before iOS 5's Notification Center that looks like Android's similar thing.
While on the other hand, Android looked and operated like the BlackBerry OS before the iPhone came out. And now look at it.
Siri is a direct copy of google voice, for example. I don't doubt that Apple will try to implement widgets of some sort at some point.
I don't think Android is really that much like iOS except in ways that are pretty much standard to phones and existed in other phones before. I don't think they look the same. Android is widgets and customizable and so much more. There are a lot of reasons people are buying android phones. Certainly, some go Android because they can get a phone for free. Some buy for 3d videos/displays. Some buy to customize. Some buy because it has bigger screens. Some buy for physical keyboards. Some buy because they don't like being tied in to Apple.
Apple is just trying to trip up Android mfgs. on things like bounce at end of list, or ability to click and call a number. These things are not why people are buying Android. It is just an attempt to use small technicalities to limit competition. It is ridiculous.
Siri is a direct copy of google voice, for example.
Sure it is.
Quote:
Apple is just trying to trip up Android mfgs. on things like bounce at end of list, or ability to click and call a number. These things are not why people are buying Android. It is just an attempt to use small technicalities to limit competition. It is ridiculous.
You do realized the original iPaq predates iPod. Check your dates. I didn't say 2003 was the original date of the iPaq, just that I was using one in 2003. Also, it seems quite relevant to many of the comments on this thread, showing pictures of phones with keyboards and saying iPhone was some new paradigm. It certainly popularized the concept, as most felt a physical keyboard was necessary, but it wasn't the first. I do recall many people at the time complaining that there was no physical keyboard.
Ok, let's straighten this out.
The iPod came out in 2001.
The iPaq Personal Assistant, named after the legacy free iPaq computer from Compaq, came out around 2000.
The iPaq legacy computer from Compaq came out in late 1999 - 2000.
The iMac, the first legacy free computer, came out in 1998.
Yeah, you laugh, but it is an iteration of a feature that already existed in Android. Now, there were refinements, but the basic idea and functioning is the same.
I have been using voice control to set alarms, dictate emails, txts, and search, etc. long before siri was released.
Obviously, apple saw that and decided it was a good feature to implement. But of course you only see things one way.
You're comparing "method for detailing and outlining a movie" with an actual finished movie. If I wrote an awesome space opera. First of it's kind. And you write one after I do, obviously inspired from my work but nonetheless different you did not STEAL my work or even copy it.
Well, that depends. The owner of the copyrights has all rights to the original work and ALL work derived from it, except for satire, and a few other limited uses.
Your position on the ipaq and iPhone. Yes touchscreen phones existed pre-iphone but they were different. Hardly comparable except for some details.
The iPhone represented a paradigm shift. A reluctant one apparently since Apple apparently doesn't like that they shifted the entire industry.
They weren't touch phones. You may think its semantics, but it isn't. It took a couple of years for other phone manufacturers to come up with useful touch phones after Apple did. Befor the iPhone, restive screens were used. You should know that.
A problem that I'm finding is that even some web sites are using touch screen to mean resistive screens that require a stylus. That's not a touchscreen. A touchscreen requires no pressure at all.
Yeah, this argument is over. You refuse to acknowledge inherent differences in tech and, well, only see it YOUR way: Google's. It's laughable to say that Siri is anything like Google Voice.
Siri is a direct copy of google voice, for example. I don't doubt that Apple will try to implement widgets of some sort at some point.
I don't think Android is really that much like iOS except in ways that are pretty much standard to phones and existed in other phones before. I don't think they look the same. Android is widgets and customizable and so much more. There are a lot of reasons people are buying android phones. Certainly, some go Android because they can get a phone for free. Some buy for 3d videos/displays. Some buy to customize. Some buy because it has bigger screens. Some buy for physical keyboards. Some buy because they don't like being tied in to Apple.
Apple is just trying to trip up Android mfgs. on things like bounce at end of list, or ability to click and call a number. These things are not why people are buying Android. It is just an attempt to use small technicalities to limit competition. It is ridiculous.
You are so wrong about Siri it is painful. Siri is not voice recognition, it is AI.
The rest of your post is just jibberish, get a life.
Rickag, we understand that Siri isn't just voice recognition. Still doesn't mean that several prominent blogs haven't referred to it as voice recognition including AllThingsD, MacRumors, TechRadar and many others.
Comments
That's like saying I copied the traditional mousetrap with my mousetrapper that vacuums mice into a cage because it is "an apparatus that baits and traps and/or kills mice"
A patent doesn't copy the idea or concept of trapping a mouse. A patent is for an invention, a specific thing, that traps a mouse. As such, there can be, and are, many patents to do that. That's true for every area.
But, there are times where there is no good way around a patent. In that case, unless that patent is required for the technology, in broad terms to function, it's tough for others. They can't use it unless the originator decides to license it, and they can't be forced to.
In the '50‘s, Honeywell invented the automatic camera strobe whereby the amount of light was regulated by the distance. A pretty simple thing. But back then, their way was the only practical way to do it. A cell measured the light, and a resistor (basically) drained the capacitor when the required amount of light had hit the subject. So simple, it seems obvious. But, of course, no one had thought of it except a couple of engineers within Honeywell, so, obviously, it wasn't obvious.
A number of other manufacturers decided to use this tech as Honeywell was siphoning off much of their business, so Honeywell sued, and won. That's the way it worked, back then, and now. Since that time, the patent expired, and newer tech has come up with much better ways of doing it that don't waste the current. But it took years.
These days, people think that everyone is entitled to what others come up with, and they want it NOW. Well, if you want it now, suck it up and buy that company's product. That's what people did with strobes back then. Honeywell got a lot of business from people who otherwise wouldn't have bought a Honeywell strobe.
The point is that there were other phones, be they smart phones or pdas with phone functionality that were touch screen long before the iPhone. And not just the iPaqs but many others.
The fact that Apple popularized the touch screen phone doesn't mean they invented them or that they didn't copy the idea from elsewhere. Many Apple fans seem to believe otherwise, or seem to think that Apple can copy ideas from others, but once they popularize the idea that it belongs to them exclusively.
The unfortunate part is that the patenting system is broken and allows overly broad patents or patenting of obvious things by deep pocketed companies that allows them to attempt to limit competition.
The fact is that Apple took existing ideas and popularized the concept. Once popularized the market for the devices expanded and they were no longer relegated to niche status. Then Android did the same thing, building off not only Apples ideas, but also those ideas which Apple built upon with the iPhone.
MULTI-TOUCH!!!
Besides the Apple Newton predates the iPaq by many years.
Samsung is an example and hypothetical, my future predicting skills need work. Sure many of these companies would love to have Apples business but A - Many of them would take months to get set up to produce what Apple may need if not years which would destroy Apple B - I am also talking about countries (China) that are not democratic and will do as they are told by their country. Apple is playing on a playground where there are rules and people are playing fair but if the time ever comes, those rules and fairness can quickly evaporate. Especially if say China feels Apple owns too much Chinese property or Apple is threatening China in some manner, China will crush them and no one is going to care except Apple. China makes everything, China also produces over 90% of the meterial needed for modern batteries and electronics. You think Apple has allot of money in the bank, China's bank account is insane. China is positioning itself to be the world power, I hate to admit that but the writing is on the wall and some petty company is not going to change that. Sure Apple is the most valued company in the world but that would change quickly if China got a wild hair and cut them off, all Apple production gets stopped, China pays the companies that are affected, everyone is happy except Apple. And it could be as simple as a pride thing, China may feel insulted by Apple slapping chinese companies around, China may decide to do a little of its own slapping, say a 6 month hold on all Apple products for inspection purposes?????
You keep bringing up Chinese companies, could you please name these Chinese companies Apple is suing?
the idea of a touch screen phone. Have you never heard of an iPaq? I was making calls on a touch screen iPaq in 2003. Funny, apple even copied naming convention from compaq.
Do you know the difference between a touch screen and the old screens which require a stylus? The iPac didn't use a touch screen.
MULTI-TOUCH!!!
Besides the Apple Newton predates the iPaq by many years.
well, the newton wasn't making phone calls now was it?
In the '50?s, Honeywell invented the automatic camera strobe whereby the amount of light was regulated by the distance. A pretty simple thing. But back then, their way was the only practical way to do it. A cell measured the light, and a resistor (basically) drained the capacitor when the required amount of light had hit the subject. So simple, it seems obvious. But, of course, no one had thought of it except a couple of engineers within Honeywell, so, obviously, it wasn't obvious.
Yeah. No. This is not obvious, and is obviously patentable.
These days, people think that everyone is entitled to what others come up with, and they want it NOW. .
No, I don't believe that is what people think. I belive people think that, for example, trying to say a Galaxy Tab looks too much like a iPad is just an attempt to stifle legitimate competition.
I mean come on, Apple is copying Android as much as Android is copying Apple. If you don't see this you aren't being honest with yourself.
No, I don't believe that is what people think.
And you have a right to think that. Doesn't make it right, but you have the right to think it.
I mean come on, Apple is copying Android as much as Android is copying Apple.
That's obscenely subjective and erring on the side of totally wrong.
If you don't see this you aren't being honest with yourself.
Let's see. Apple "didn't" have notifications before iOS 5's Notification Center that looks like Android's similar thing.
While on the other hand, Android looked and operated like the BlackBerry OS before the iPhone came out. And now look at it.
I'd say they are failing if you look at the total history of MS where they were and where they are now. Businesses are either improving, standing still or declining and by almost every metric MS doing really well at the last category.
Their growth has slowed down, so they are no longer considered a growth company. The slowdown will continue. But they are still doing well, by most metrics. They must divest themselves of things that are doing poorly and will never do well, such as search, and areas in which they shouldn't be, such as entertainment.
At some point, they will need to recognize that their business is business, and not consumer products. Some people poi t out that the XBox is on top now, but it's just 2% of their business, insignificant. They will never come close to regaining the $9 billion in losses it generated along with the rest of their entertainment division (now part of another division).
The same thing with Bing, though it's generating losses at a more rapid rate than entertainment ever did, with no chance of ever making a profit. They were very luck that Jerry Yang is such a poor businessman that he refused to sell Yahoo to Ms at such an inflated price. If that happened, Ms would be writing off billions in goodwill.
MS still has a lot of good years ahead. There's a reason for that. It's because software companies can rip off their customers, while hardware companies have a much harder time of it. I've always found it amusing that while Apple's 41% gross margin and their 24% net arouses calls of ripoff, but MS's 76% gross and 33% net doesn't.
Why are software companies allowed to overcharge so much without much complaint? They take less risk, and get much higher returns. If Ms didn't lose som much on other businesses, those margins would be even higher. It's those margins that allow them to take huge losses for years when other companies would have had to abandon the losing business years before.
This is really a use of monopoly profits to drive companies in other areas of business to their knees, though the courts don't recognize it as such.
It's this high margin that will allow them to hold on for a long while to come, and give them a chance to reorganize their business when they finally see they must.
And you have a right to think that. Doesn't make it right, but you have the right to think it.
That's obscenely subjective and erring on the side of totally wrong.
Let's see. Apple "didn't" have notifications before iOS 5's Notification Center that looks like Android's similar thing.
While on the other hand, Android looked and operated like the BlackBerry OS before the iPhone came out. And now look at it.
Siri is a direct copy of google voice, for example. I don't doubt that Apple will try to implement widgets of some sort at some point.
I don't think Android is really that much like iOS except in ways that are pretty much standard to phones and existed in other phones before. I don't think they look the same. Android is widgets and customizable and so much more. There are a lot of reasons people are buying android phones. Certainly, some go Android because they can get a phone for free. Some buy for 3d videos/displays. Some buy to customize. Some buy because it has bigger screens. Some buy for physical keyboards. Some buy because they don't like being tied in to Apple.
Apple is just trying to trip up Android mfgs. on things like bounce at end of list, or ability to click and call a number. These things are not why people are buying Android. It is just an attempt to use small technicalities to limit competition. It is ridiculous.
Siri is a direct copy of google voice, for example.
Sure it is.
Apple is just trying to trip up Android mfgs. on things like bounce at end of list, or ability to click and call a number. These things are not why people are buying Android. It is just an attempt to use small technicalities to limit competition. It is ridiculous.
Do you know the difference between a touch screen and the old screens which require a stylus? The iPac didn't use a touch screen.
It certainly did use a touch screen. I dialed numbers with my finger. No stylus required.
What doesn't matter?
You do realized the original iPaq predates iPod. Check your dates. I didn't say 2003 was the original date of the iPaq, just that I was using one in 2003. Also, it seems quite relevant to many of the comments on this thread, showing pictures of phones with keyboards and saying iPhone was some new paradigm. It certainly popularized the concept, as most felt a physical keyboard was necessary, but it wasn't the first. I do recall many people at the time complaining that there was no physical keyboard.
Ok, let's straighten this out.
The iPod came out in 2001.
The iPaq Personal Assistant, named after the legacy free iPaq computer from Compaq, came out around 2000.
The iPaq legacy computer from Compaq came out in late 1999 - 2000.
The iMac, the first legacy free computer, came out in 1998.
Sure it is.
Yeah, you laugh, but it is an iteration of a feature that already existed in Android. Now, there were refinements, but the basic idea and functioning is the same.
I have been using voice control to set alarms, dictate emails, txts, and search, etc. long before siri was released.
Obviously, apple saw that and decided it was a good feature to implement. But of course you only see things one way.
You're comparing "method for detailing and outlining a movie" with an actual finished movie. If I wrote an awesome space opera. First of it's kind. And you write one after I do, obviously inspired from my work but nonetheless different you did not STEAL my work or even copy it.
Well, that depends. The owner of the copyrights has all rights to the original work and ALL work derived from it, except for satire, and a few other limited uses.
Your position on the ipaq and iPhone. Yes touchscreen phones existed pre-iphone but they were different. Hardly comparable except for some details.
The iPhone represented a paradigm shift. A reluctant one apparently since Apple apparently doesn't like that they shifted the entire industry.
They weren't touch phones. You may think its semantics, but it isn't. It took a couple of years for other phone manufacturers to come up with useful touch phones after Apple did. Befor the iPhone, restive screens were used. You should know that.
A problem that I'm finding is that even some web sites are using touch screen to mean resistive screens that require a stylus. That's not a touchscreen. A touchscreen requires no pressure at all.
But of course you only see things one way.
Yeah, this argument is over. You refuse to acknowledge inherent differences in tech and, well, only see it YOUR way: Google's. It's laughable to say that Siri is anything like Google Voice.
Siri is a direct copy of google voice, for example. I don't doubt that Apple will try to implement widgets of some sort at some point.
I don't think Android is really that much like iOS except in ways that are pretty much standard to phones and existed in other phones before. I don't think they look the same. Android is widgets and customizable and so much more. There are a lot of reasons people are buying android phones. Certainly, some go Android because they can get a phone for free. Some buy for 3d videos/displays. Some buy to customize. Some buy because it has bigger screens. Some buy for physical keyboards. Some buy because they don't like being tied in to Apple.
Apple is just trying to trip up Android mfgs. on things like bounce at end of list, or ability to click and call a number. These things are not why people are buying Android. It is just an attempt to use small technicalities to limit competition. It is ridiculous.
You are so wrong about Siri it is painful. Siri is not voice recognition, it is AI.
The rest of your post is just jibberish, get a life.
well, the newton wasn't making phone calls now was it?
Well, you could dial a number with the Newton, so...