Face it, Apple is afraid of competition and so they try to sue anyone that gets in their way.
Fandroid 1: "Apple sues because they're afraid of competition"
Fandroid 2: "Apple sues because they're a patent troll"
Well which is it? Because it can't be both.
Patent trolls don't use their patents to strategically differentiate their products (if they even sell products), because patent licensing is their source of income.
If you sell products using those patents, then patent litigation involving those patents serves to protect innovation. After all, that's why patents are granted. Apple is afraid of IP theft, not "competition."
Why do people equate writing checks as innovation? Apple didn't invent Siri, develop or have anything to do with it. They wrote a check for it. Smart, very, innovative, not very.
The also obtained the people too. And if you notice, they didn't just buy the technology and cram it into iOS. They made improvements and integrated it into iOS. Siri, pre-Apple, was a starting point.
The also obtained the people too. And if you notice, they didn't just buy the technology and cram it into iOS. They made improvements and integrated it into iOS. Siri, pre-Apple, was a starting point.
It is absurd to argue with such foolishness. The argument to which you reply suggests Siri is not innovative. The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency and dozens of engineers at top engineering universities across the United States who spent an estimated USD $200 million to develop the complex architecture and infrastructure beg to differ with this ludicrous suggestion.
You really can't expect some people to understand Siri as competing products have nothing comparable. Describing Siri to such people is akin to describing artificial intelligence neural networks to a Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, they simply lack the conceptual framework to begin to process the innovation.
The iphone and the Galaxy Nexus don't have anything in common, I wish they finally stop this non-sense sues and focus on get better features and TRUE innovation.
Google hasn't yet sued anyone despite a large number of patents in its portfolio both home-grown and acquired, including one filed for the notification bar back in 2009. They controlled thousands of them even before the MM purchase. Google has a completely different attitude towards initiating litigation against it's tech neighbors than any of it's competitors.
If they have haven't sued anyone why are Google and Motorola being investigated by the FTC for absuing their FRAND patents?
Could it be because of the lawsuit Motorola filed in January? (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/25/us-motorola-apple-idUSTRE80O29G20120125). From the time of the announcement, all major decisions at Motorola were approved but Google. Did Google come along and withdraw the suit? Or is it now evil to direct a subsidiary to do something. If Apple moved all their patents to a subsidiary company and had that company sue, would you think it was OK?
This was just one example of Google suing a competitor. It took me 5 seconds to find it.
The iphone and the Galaxy Nexus don't have anything in common, I wish they finally stop this non-sense sues and focus on get better features and TRUE innovation.
I agree, I think many of us would like Apple competitors to stop infringing upon Apple patents and innovate rather than emulate.
One of my animators is from South Korea and she just told me she's embarrissed to be Korean. Seriously. She said Samsung is a huge and corrupt mega company who even make cars (only for Korea) and are run by a mafia family who's CEOs have been jailed but were quickly released because of their wealth and deep ties to government. She said she had first hand looks at Samsung's tablets when they first came out and was amazed by what Apple ripoffs they were. She said the Galaxy Tab she saw was basically an iPad, right down to the packaging.
She also said Samsung is relentless in their pursuit to be a monopoly and routinely break the law to get what they want.
It's no wonder Samsung has no problem stealing Apple's IP. They're basically crooks to begin with.
One of my animators is from South Korea and she just told me she's embarrissed to be Korean. Seriously. She said Samsung is a huge and corrupt mega company who even make cars (only for Korea) and are run by a mafia family who's CEOs have been jailed but were quickly released because of their wealth and deep ties to government. She said she had first hand looks at Samsung's tablets when they first came out and was amazed by what Apple ripoffs they were. She said the Galaxy Tab she saw was basically an iPad, right down to the packaging.
She also said Samsung is relentless in their pursuit to be a monopoly and routinely break the law to get what they want.
It's no wonder Samsung has no problem stealing Apple's IP. They're basically crooks to begin with.
If they have haven't sued anyone why are Google and Motorola being investigated by the FTC for absuing their FRAND patents?
Could it be because of the lawsuit Motorola filed in January? (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/25/us-motorola-apple-idUSTRE80O29G20120125). From the time of the announcement, all major decisions at Motorola were approved but Google. Did Google come along and withdraw the suit? Or is it now evil to direct a subsidiary to do something. If Apple moved all their patents to a subsidiary company and had that company sue, would you think it was OK?
This was just one example of Google suing a competitor. It took me 5 seconds to find it.
He conveniently ignores any post which contradicts his self affirming reality. I already posted several examples earlier. A very good reason to have such people blocked.
Google generally initiates lawsuits through partners and subsidiaries though. Google's model makes lawsuits almost completely unnecessary though as Google's products are consumers. You can't patent "consumers." You can patent data gathering technologies including the architecture and infrastructure but few care about the underpinnings of technology. Fortunately, few technology companies are contemptuous toward consumers enough to base their business model on compromising their integrity, morality and principles.
I headed over to Engadget for a few laughs, a site which I rarely visit anymore, because the comment sections are infested with ignorant trash and human garbage
You should be right at home at Engadget...
But instead you choose the tech world's stormfront...aka Appleinsider...
He conveniently ignores any post which contradicts his self affirming reality. I already posted several examples earlier. A very good reason to have such people blocked.
Google generally initiates lawsuits through partners and subsidiaries though. Google's model makes lawsuits almost completely unnecessary though as Google's products are consumers. You can't patent "consumers." You can patent data gathering technologies including the architecture and infrastructure but few care about the underpinnings of technology. Fortunately, few technology companies are contemptuous toward consumers enough to base their business model on compromising their integrity, morality and principles.
What about Google "assigning" patents to HTC so HTC could sue Apple? Or is suing by proxy not the same thing as suing directly?
And what about Google officially backing up Motorola long before their acquisition was finalized (you know, where Google stood behind Moto's universally criticized 2.25% royalty demands).
Why do people equate writing checks as innovation? Apple didn't invent Siri, develop or have anything to do with it. They wrote a check for it. Smart, very, innovative, not very.
As someone mentioned, Apple didn't just "buy" Siri - they buy companies and then integrate their IP into their own products/services. Just look at their acquisitions of PA Semi, Anobit or Chomp as examples.
However, Apple is a lightweight when compared to Google. There are currently 113 companies Google has bought. That must make Google "very innovative".
Not because of the Apple versus Samsung thing - frankly, Samsung has been more shameless than most in knocking off Apple products. I thought that the Galaxy Tab lawsuit was pretty silly, but then I was in Best Buy, and I walked past one and did a double take - my first thought was "something looks wrong with that iPad". Compare this to the Kindle Fire, or the Asus Transformer - at least the other companies are trying something different.
But anyway, I digress. This sucks because it's the first time that a software patent has been this heavily enforced, and that's a scary thing. Read the patent in question - it's trivial, it's intentionally vague, and it's overly broad. Yet this is the world that we are in.
So what happens when this sort of practice becomes commonplace? At least Apple and Google and Samsung and Microsoft have the money to defend themselves, but when little companies get caught in the crossfire, it'll destroy them. Samsung is going to survive this, so is Google, and so is Apple. With this heating up, it is very much going to stifle innovation. Imagine you wanted to create the next great mobile operating system. You were going to write it from scratch - the question is, could you? Every interaction, every tiny feature (bounciness on lists, tapping the screen, having a popup window of apps, long pressing items, etc., etc.) is patented. For the most part, this was reactive - a mutually assured destruction strategy - but Apple is now the first real player to press the launch button, and things are going to change.
Samsung deserves a lot of the criticism that they get - even now I think that they bring less to the table than other Android manufacturers in terms of design innovation. Litigation through the enforcement of vague patents is not the way to do this, it's going to hurt everybody in the end. Licensing fees will increase the cost of devices. Small companies will stay out of the market and decrease competition. Patent lawsuits will decrease payroll at companies and cause reduced employment. Everybody loses.
Not because of the Apple versus Samsung thing - frankly, Samsung has been more shameless than most in knocking off Apple products. I thought that the Galaxy Tab lawsuit was pretty silly, but then I was in Best Buy, and I walked past one and did a double take - my first thought was "something looks wrong with that iPad". Compare this to the Kindle Fire, or the Asus Transformer - at least the other companies are trying something different.
But anyway, I digress. This sucks because it's the first time that a software patent has been this heavily enforced, and that's a scary thing. Read the patent in question - it's trivial, it's intentionally vague, and it's overly broad. Yet this is the world that we are in.
So what happens when this sort of practice becomes commonplace? At least Apple and Google and Samsung and Microsoft have the money to defend themselves, but when little companies get caught in the crossfire, it'll destroy them. Samsung is going to survive this, so is Google, and so is Apple. With this heating up, it is very much going to stifle innovation. Imagine you wanted to create the next great mobile operating system. You were going to write it from scratch - the question is, could you? Every interaction, every tiny feature (bounciness on lists, tapping the screen, having a popup window of apps, long pressing items, etc., etc.) is patented. For the most part, this was reactive - a mutually assured destruction strategy - but Apple is now the first real player to press the launch button, and things are going to change.
Samsung deserves a lot of the criticism that they get - even now I think that they bring less to the table than other Android manufacturers in terms of design innovation. Litigation through the enforcement of vague patents is not the way to do this, it's going to hurt everybody in the end. Licensing fees will increase the cost of devices. Small companies will stay out of the market and decrease competition. Patent lawsuits will decrease payroll at companies and cause reduced employment. Everybody loses.
Except for the patent lawyers.
May I suggest reviewing the patent again? i recognize the patent language and images which describe the framework of Siri. This is one of the important components of Siri and the reason we don't see this level of integration on competing platforms. The patent relates the unique architecture and infrastructure of Siri which was developed at the behest of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency by dozens of brilliant engineers at top engineering universities over a decade at an estimated cost of USD $200 million. I suggest that while much of the effort depends upon prior art the sum is greater than the parts.
I think there is a lot of innovation small companies can do but no mom and pop business is going to start designing or manufacturing mobile phones. Innovation actually seems to be growing at a very quick pace rather than slowing. The difference seems to be that large companies are quick to identify potential advantages in the marketplace and quickly acquire potentially revolutionary products and services whenever possible.
May I suggest reviewing the patent again? i recognize the patent language and images which describe the framework of Siri. This is one of the important components of Siri and the reason we don't see this level of integration on competing platforms. The patent relates the unique architecture and infrastructure of Siri which was developed at the behest of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency by dozens of brilliant engineers at top engineering universities over a decade at an estimated cost of USD $200 million. I suggest that while much of the effort depends upon prior art the sum is greater than the parts.
I think there is a lot of innovation small companies can do but no mom and pop business is going to start designing or manufacturing mobile phones. Innovation actually seems to be growing at a very quick pace rather than slowing. The difference seems to be that large companies are quick to identify potential advantages in the marketplace and quickly acquire potentially revolutionary products and services whenever possible.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but while Siri is certainly covered by this patent, I feel like it doesn't just cover Siri.
When I was in university - before the iPhone was rumored to exist - I made a program that would tell you when someone was born. You would enter "Gandhi", and it would (with a little luck) say October 2, 1869. My technique was pretty simple: I kicked off a Google search for "When was X born?", crawled the first five results for dates (by matching MM/DD/YYYY and various permutations of that), and returned the most common date. This didn't work too well, but it worked sometimes and was fun to write. It took about 4 hours from idea to code complete, and maybe 100 lines of code.
From my understanding of the patent, my tool would also be infringing if it was released today. At a very abstract level, it is meta-search with a heuristic. While I am not claiming prior art - Siri is certainly much more advanced than this - it is pretty scary that the patent would cover my silly application as well. That's my problem with how broad it is. It could apply to nearly any filtering of search results, and it doesn't even mention any of the heuristics that are used, just "various heuristics" for filtering results.
Comments
no—i mean, yes. i mean—YES!
(420 time.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
a device...is in competition with
a company...
you see, there's the flaw in your argument—huge—huge flaw—some would say gargantuan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by specter2009
Face it, Apple is afraid of competition and so they try to sue anyone that gets in their way.
Fandroid 1: "Apple sues because they're afraid of competition"
Fandroid 2: "Apple sues because they're a patent troll"
Well which is it? Because it can't be both.
Patent trolls don't use their patents to strategically differentiate their products (if they even sell products), because patent licensing is their source of income.
If you sell products using those patents, then patent litigation involving those patents serves to protect innovation. After all, that's why patents are granted. Apple is afraid of IP theft, not "competition."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
Why do people equate writing checks as innovation? Apple didn't invent Siri, develop or have anything to do with it. They wrote a check for it. Smart, very, innovative, not very.
The also obtained the people too. And if you notice, they didn't just buy the technology and cram it into iOS. They made improvements and integrated it into iOS. Siri, pre-Apple, was a starting point.
It is absurd to argue with such foolishness. The argument to which you reply suggests Siri is not innovative. The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency and dozens of engineers at top engineering universities across the United States who spent an estimated USD $200 million to develop the complex architecture and infrastructure beg to differ with this ludicrous suggestion.
You really can't expect some people to understand Siri as competing products have nothing comparable. Describing Siri to such people is akin to describing artificial intelligence neural networks to a Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, they simply lack the conceptual framework to begin to process the innovation.
The iphone and the Galaxy Nexus don't have anything in common, I wish they finally stop this non-sense sues and focus on get better features and TRUE innovation.
If they have haven't sued anyone why are Google and Motorola being investigated by the FTC for absuing their FRAND patents?
Could it be because of the lawsuit Motorola filed in January? (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/25/us-motorola-apple-idUSTRE80O29G20120125). From the time of the announcement, all major decisions at Motorola were approved but Google. Did Google come along and withdraw the suit? Or is it now evil to direct a subsidiary to do something. If Apple moved all their patents to a subsidiary company and had that company sue, would you think it was OK?
This was just one example of Google suing a competitor. It took me 5 seconds to find it.
But using FRAND patents illegally isn't suing. The Moto lwsuit I'd say falls under Google squarely.
I agree, I think many of us would like Apple competitors to stop infringing upon Apple patents and innovate rather than emulate.
She also said Samsung is relentless in their pursuit to be a monopoly and routinely break the law to get what they want.
It's no wonder Samsung has no problem stealing Apple's IP. They're basically crooks to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeniThings
One of my animators is from South Korea and she just told me she's embarrissed to be Korean. Seriously. She said Samsung is a huge and corrupt mega company who even make cars (only for Korea) and are run by a mafia family who's CEOs have been jailed but were quickly released because of their wealth and deep ties to government. She said she had first hand looks at Samsung's tablets when they first came out and was amazed by what Apple ripoffs they were. She said the Galaxy Tab she saw was basically an iPad, right down to the packaging.
She also said Samsung is relentless in their pursuit to be a monopoly and routinely break the law to get what they want.
It's no wonder Samsung has no problem stealing Apple's IP. They're basically crooks to begin with.
Did she see one of these too?
He conveniently ignores any post which contradicts his self affirming reality. I already posted several examples earlier. A very good reason to have such people blocked.
Google generally initiates lawsuits through partners and subsidiaries though. Google's model makes lawsuits almost completely unnecessary though as Google's products are consumers. You can't patent "consumers." You can patent data gathering technologies including the architecture and infrastructure but few care about the underpinnings of technology. Fortunately, few technology companies are contemptuous toward consumers enough to base their business model on compromising their integrity, morality and principles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I headed over to Engadget for a few laughs, a site which I rarely visit anymore, because the comment sections are infested with ignorant trash and human garbage
You should be right at home at Engadget...
But instead you choose the tech world's stormfront...aka Appleinsider...
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
exactly. And it isn't really like they took the look and feel or the coding that makes it work.
If that's how the world worked Apple would literally have no case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
He conveniently ignores any post which contradicts his self affirming reality. I already posted several examples earlier. A very good reason to have such people blocked.
Google generally initiates lawsuits through partners and subsidiaries though. Google's model makes lawsuits almost completely unnecessary though as Google's products are consumers. You can't patent "consumers." You can patent data gathering technologies including the architecture and infrastructure but few care about the underpinnings of technology. Fortunately, few technology companies are contemptuous toward consumers enough to base their business model on compromising their integrity, morality and principles.
Citation needed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Which lawsuits has Google initiated?
What about Google "assigning" patents to HTC so HTC could sue Apple? Or is suing by proxy not the same thing as suing directly?
And what about Google officially backing up Motorola long before their acquisition was finalized (you know, where Google stood behind Moto's universally criticized 2.25% royalty demands).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
Why do people equate writing checks as innovation? Apple didn't invent Siri, develop or have anything to do with it. They wrote a check for it. Smart, very, innovative, not very.
As someone mentioned, Apple didn't just "buy" Siri - they buy companies and then integrate their IP into their own products/services. Just look at their acquisitions of PA Semi, Anobit or Chomp as examples.
However, Apple is a lightweight when compared to Google. There are currently 113 companies Google has bought. That must make Google "very innovative".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Google
This sucks.
Not because of the Apple versus Samsung thing - frankly, Samsung has been more shameless than most in knocking off Apple products. I thought that the Galaxy Tab lawsuit was pretty silly, but then I was in Best Buy, and I walked past one and did a double take - my first thought was "something looks wrong with that iPad". Compare this to the Kindle Fire, or the Asus Transformer - at least the other companies are trying something different.
But anyway, I digress. This sucks because it's the first time that a software patent has been this heavily enforced, and that's a scary thing. Read the patent in question - it's trivial, it's intentionally vague, and it's overly broad. Yet this is the world that we are in.
So what happens when this sort of practice becomes commonplace? At least Apple and Google and Samsung and Microsoft have the money to defend themselves, but when little companies get caught in the crossfire, it'll destroy them. Samsung is going to survive this, so is Google, and so is Apple. With this heating up, it is very much going to stifle innovation. Imagine you wanted to create the next great mobile operating system. You were going to write it from scratch - the question is, could you? Every interaction, every tiny feature (bounciness on lists, tapping the screen, having a popup window of apps, long pressing items, etc., etc.) is patented. For the most part, this was reactive - a mutually assured destruction strategy - but Apple is now the first real player to press the launch button, and things are going to change.
Samsung deserves a lot of the criticism that they get - even now I think that they bring less to the table than other Android manufacturers in terms of design innovation. Litigation through the enforcement of vague patents is not the way to do this, it's going to hurt everybody in the end. Licensing fees will increase the cost of devices. Small companies will stay out of the market and decrease competition. Patent lawsuits will decrease payroll at companies and cause reduced employment. Everybody loses.
Except for the patent lawyers.
May I suggest reviewing the patent again? i recognize the patent language and images which describe the framework of Siri. This is one of the important components of Siri and the reason we don't see this level of integration on competing platforms. The patent relates the unique architecture and infrastructure of Siri which was developed at the behest of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency by dozens of brilliant engineers at top engineering universities over a decade at an estimated cost of USD $200 million. I suggest that while much of the effort depends upon prior art the sum is greater than the parts.
I think there is a lot of innovation small companies can do but no mom and pop business is going to start designing or manufacturing mobile phones. Innovation actually seems to be growing at a very quick pace rather than slowing. The difference seems to be that large companies are quick to identify potential advantages in the marketplace and quickly acquire potentially revolutionary products and services whenever possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
May I suggest reviewing the patent again? i recognize the patent language and images which describe the framework of Siri. This is one of the important components of Siri and the reason we don't see this level of integration on competing platforms. The patent relates the unique architecture and infrastructure of Siri which was developed at the behest of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency by dozens of brilliant engineers at top engineering universities over a decade at an estimated cost of USD $200 million. I suggest that while much of the effort depends upon prior art the sum is greater than the parts.
I think there is a lot of innovation small companies can do but no mom and pop business is going to start designing or manufacturing mobile phones. Innovation actually seems to be growing at a very quick pace rather than slowing. The difference seems to be that large companies are quick to identify potential advantages in the marketplace and quickly acquire potentially revolutionary products and services whenever possible.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but while Siri is certainly covered by this patent, I feel like it doesn't just cover Siri.
When I was in university - before the iPhone was rumored to exist - I made a program that would tell you when someone was born. You would enter "Gandhi", and it would (with a little luck) say October 2, 1869. My technique was pretty simple: I kicked off a Google search for "When was X born?", crawled the first five results for dates (by matching MM/DD/YYYY and various permutations of that), and returned the most common date. This didn't work too well, but it worked sometimes and was fun to write. It took about 4 hours from idea to code complete, and maybe 100 lines of code.
From my understanding of the patent, my tool would also be infringing if it was released today. At a very abstract level, it is meta-search with a heuristic. While I am not claiming prior art - Siri is certainly much more advanced than this - it is pretty scary that the patent would cover my silly application as well. That's my problem with how broad it is. It could apply to nearly any filtering of search results, and it doesn't even mention any of the heuristics that are used, just "various heuristics" for filtering results.