Why don't you establish what Steve accused Android of stealing first, before saying that Android is not a stolen product. You've made some very weak and superficial claims that don't prove there is no code in Android that was stolen from others. What about Java?
Why don't you establish what Steve accused Android of stealing first, before saying that Android is not a stolen product. You've made some very weak and superficial claims that don't prove there is no code in Android that was stolen from others. What about Java?
Right, it's not fair to think that Apple existed before the iPhone.
I am referring to the iPhone being released in 2007, and the iOS that was on that phone thereafter.
See, there's your problem. There are lots of ideas in the world the came from stuff developed before 2007, and they got adapted and repurposed into devices after 2007. If you don't want to deal with history, you need to not make sweeping definitive generalizations about who did what first.
I can say three things that pretty much blow your Android arguments out of the water. Just go back and see who had what first.
Newton.
Palm Pilot and follow-ons.
WebOS. [yes still Palm, but a distinctly different beast than the original Palm devices] [notifications better than the rest]
Really there isn't much truly new in the world, it's all adaptation of what came before, and a company making PCs since the late 1970s has a long history to pull from. Palm, now a minuscule part of HP isn't quite as long lived as Apple, but it had lots of great innovation in it's heyday.
Now tell me something non-trivial or overly narrowly defined that Apple and/or Palm didn't have a hand in defining first. Notice those two major players had features that did similar things, but actually went about doing them in obviously unique ways. They played nicely and didn't just copy and then get pissed about being called on it, responding then with patent hissy-fits with patents that were already promised as part of a standard.
Google owns over 2000 (probably closer to 3000) software and hardware patents, not including those with Motorola, and doesn't sue any competitor.
And what's you're point? They are altruistic? They are buying patents with no intention of ever defending them? That all patents are created equal and that it's the quantity, not quality, that matters with a patent portfolio?
You seriously aren't aware of the Oracle v Google issues over Java when Jobs made that comment?
I'm well aware of what Oracle claims. So far their efforts to prove it have been suffering.
You should follow the well-detailed articles at Groklaw. There's really very little left of Oracle's case, which is probably why FOSSPatents lost interest.
You've gone from not making a cogent argument in text to not making a cogent argument with a big ass image.
Like I said, that image says it all about Apple. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what it means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
See, there's your problem. There are lots of ideas in the world the came from stuff developed before 2007, and they got adapted and repurposed into devices after 2007. If you don't want to deal with history, you need to not make sweeping definitive generalizations about who did what first.
I can say three things that pretty much blow your Android arguments out of the water. Just go back and see who had what first.
Newton.
Palm Pilot and follow-ons.
WebOS. [yes still Palm, but a distinctly different beast than the original Palm devices] [notifications better than the rest]
Really there isn't much truly new in the world, it's all adaptation of what came before, and a company making PCs since the late 1970s has a long history to pull from. Palm, now a minuscule part of HP isn't quite as long lived as Apple, but it had lots of great innovation in it's heyday.
Now tell me something non-trivial or overly narrowly defined that Apple and/or Palm didn't have a hand in defining first. Notice those two major players had features that did similar things, but actually went about doing them in obviously unique ways. They played nicely and didn't just copy and then get pissed about being called on it, responding then with patent hissy-fits with patents that were already promised as part of a standard.
Sigh.., did you even read my long ass post? This is an argument between iOS and Android, and I did say that I've only used iOS and Android in the past, so you bringing up Palm Pilots, and WebOS doesn't really do much for me because I don't know much about them and their histories.
I think settlement could be good for Apple, provide they're the one who get financial benefit of course. How is it not good for Apple if they could add cost into Android? Destroying Android just isn't a reality.
Comments
Why don't you establish what Steve accused Android of stealing first, before saying that Android is not a stolen product. You've made some very weak and superficial claims that don't prove there is no code in Android that was stolen from others. What about Java?
What about Java?
Why don't you establish what Steve accused Android of stealing first, before saying that Android is not a stolen product. You've made some very weak and superficial claims that don't prove there is no code in Android that was stolen from others. What about Java?
Right, it's not fair to think that Apple existed before the iPhone.
I think this says it all about Apple..
What about Java?
You seriously aren't aware of the Oracle v Google issues over Java when Jobs made that comment?
I think this says it all about Apple..
<big ass image>
You've gone from not making a cogent argument in text to not making a cogent argument with a big ass image.
I am referring to the iPhone being released in 2007, and the iOS that was on that phone thereafter.
See, there's your problem. There are lots of ideas in the world the came from stuff developed before 2007, and they got adapted and repurposed into devices after 2007. If you don't want to deal with history, you need to not make sweeping definitive generalizations about who did what first.
I can say three things that pretty much blow your Android arguments out of the water. Just go back and see who had what first.
Newton.
Palm Pilot and follow-ons.
WebOS. [yes still Palm, but a distinctly different beast than the original Palm devices] [notifications better than the rest]
Really there isn't much truly new in the world, it's all adaptation of what came before, and a company making PCs since the late 1970s has a long history to pull from. Palm, now a minuscule part of HP isn't quite as long lived as Apple, but it had lots of great innovation in it's heyday.
Now tell me something non-trivial or overly narrowly defined that Apple and/or Palm didn't have a hand in defining first. Notice those two major players had features that did similar things, but actually went about doing them in obviously unique ways. They played nicely and didn't just copy and then get pissed about being called on it, responding then with patent hissy-fits with patents that were already promised as part of a standard.
Google owns over 2000 (probably closer to 3000) software and hardware patents, not including those with Motorola, and doesn't sue any competitor.
hmmm...
Google owns over 2000 (probably closer to 3000) software and hardware patents, not including those with Motorola, and doesn't sue any competitor.
And what's you're point? They are altruistic? They are buying patents with no intention of ever defending them? That all patents are created equal and that it's the quantity, not quality, that matters with a patent portfolio?
You seriously aren't aware of the Oracle v Google issues over Java when Jobs made that comment?
I'm well aware of what Oracle claims. So far their efforts to prove it have been suffering.
You should follow the well-detailed articles at Groklaw. There's really very little left of Oracle's case, which is probably why FOSSPatents lost interest.
You've gone from not making a cogent argument in text to not making a cogent argument with a big ass image.
Like I said, that image says it all about Apple. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what it means.
See, there's your problem. There are lots of ideas in the world the came from stuff developed before 2007, and they got adapted and repurposed into devices after 2007. If you don't want to deal with history, you need to not make sweeping definitive generalizations about who did what first.
I can say three things that pretty much blow your Android arguments out of the water. Just go back and see who had what first.
Newton.
Palm Pilot and follow-ons.
WebOS. [yes still Palm, but a distinctly different beast than the original Palm devices] [notifications better than the rest]
Really there isn't much truly new in the world, it's all adaptation of what came before, and a company making PCs since the late 1970s has a long history to pull from. Palm, now a minuscule part of HP isn't quite as long lived as Apple, but it had lots of great innovation in it's heyday.
Now tell me something non-trivial or overly narrowly defined that Apple and/or Palm didn't have a hand in defining first. Notice those two major players had features that did similar things, but actually went about doing them in obviously unique ways. They played nicely and didn't just copy and then get pissed about being called on it, responding then with patent hissy-fits with patents that were already promised as part of a standard.
Sigh.., did you even read my long ass post? This is an argument between iOS and Android, and I did say that I've only used iOS and Android in the past, so you bringing up Palm Pilots, and WebOS doesn't really do much for me because I don't know much about them and their histories.
Like I said, that image says it all about Apple. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what it means.
Since we seem to be idiots, mind explaining "what it means" for us?
?so you bringing up Palm Pilots, and WebOS doesn't really do much for me because I don't know much about them and their histories.
So wouldn't you think you'd go read some more about the history of what we're discussing so that you can refine your argument to not be false?
Since we seem to be idiots, mind explaining "what it means" for us?
I don't know what his point was either so throw me in with the dummy group
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
I think settlement could be good for Apple, provide they're the one who get financial benefit of course. How is it not good for Apple if they could add cost into Android? Destroying Android just isn't a reality.
truely said