Why would Apple even bother doing this, wouldn't it have been easier to just buy their tech? Clearly, Audience had better tech and Apple choose them instead. I wonder what proof there is that Apple 'stole' anything.
Why buy when you can steal, then kill it in courts with deep pockets.
Why buy when you can steal, then kill it in courts with deep pockets.
I expect this to drag on in a very expensive manner, with apple filing many, many motions and getting bitched out by the judge, frivolous counterclaims up the wazoo, many, many false starts and ratholes of distraction.
When the plaintiffs are at the breaking point, emotionally and financially, then Apple will settle. Their total cost to Apple will be less than it would have been to simply license the tech in the first place, yielding a big financial win for Apple.
I expect this to drag on in a very expensive manner, with apple filing many, many motions and getting bitched out by the judge, frivolous counterclaims up the wazoo, many, many false starts and ratholes of distraction.
Then Apple will settle. Their total cost will be less than it would have been to simply license the tech in the first place, yielding a big win for Apple.
Do you write fiction for a living?
They murdered women in Salem based on more evidence than we have so far heard!
Based on Apple's dangerous precedent, Noise Free Wireless should ask for an injunction against the sale of the iPhone 4s in the US.
and whilst we're at it, Tim Cook can stop being arrogant and pretending Apple are the inventors for the world, when everyone knows they copy as much if not more from everyone else.
Based on Apple's dangerous precedent, Noise Free Wireless should ask for an injunction against the sale of the iPhone 4s in the US.
and whilst we're at it, Tim Cook can stop being arrogant and pretending Apple are the inventors for the world, when everyone knows they copy as much if not more from everyone else.
Based on Apple's dangerous precedent, Noise Free Wireless should ask for an injunction against the sale of the iPhone 4s in the US.
and whilst we're at it, Tim Cook can stop being arrogant and pretending Apple are the inventors for the world, when everyone knows they copy as much if not more from everyone else.
It warms my heart to see that Tim Cook is a lot like Steve Jobs when it comes to Apple's pride in their products. And it also warms my heart to see that drive certain folks bat-shit crazy.
Apple, LONG AGO, decided to use the patent system to go about patenting things, with the natural expectation that they will work to enforce their patents.
This opportunity was open to EVERYONE. There are many, as we're seeing, who didn't take it. Too bad.
Noise canceling headphones have been around for decades now. I'm surprised that somebody doesn't already have a patent on the technology. Those decades old products seem to work on a similar principle as the patent diagram in the OP, with an extra mic picking up ambient noise.
I believe the major difference in noise cancelling headphones and noise cancelling Mics is that it's easier to cancel out the former because all you want to hear is what is coming through the wire. ( forgive my terminology here, I'm not an engineer ) You have a pure signal as your "primary" and a random signal as your ambient noise you want cancelled.
With a Microphone, you have what you want to process ( the person's voice ) as part of the Primary signal coming from the mic, but the noise comes with it. You have to use your secondary source with even greater ambient noise which includes the tertiary source of the speaker noise to filter against. That would seem to be far more complex to me. ( but again I'm not an engineer so take this with a grain of salt )
Unless this company is defrauding the court, Apple's got some 'splaining to do.
Have you ever read a legal complaint that didn't make a good sounding case? It wouldn't be a very good complaint if it didn't. Does that make it true? By your apparent logic we don't need trials, just believe a complaint on face value and move on.
I'm as big an Apple fan as anyone, and I expect my reaction is fairly typical:
1. I have confidence/faith in Apple as a company and therefore I doubt that this story is true as characterized by the complainant. I'm sure there were meeting, etc., but I doubt that Apple used illegal and inappropriate means to steal the ideas.
2. Having said that, it's possible that it's true, in which case I will be disappointed in Apple.
3. Especially if they don't handle it appropriately. For example, there are bad apples (no pun intended) in any organization, and it's possible that some individuals did some illegal/immoral things based on the meetings and samples. If that's the case (and it wasn't some top-down decision--assuming anything happened at all) then I would hope that Apple, on learning this would fire some people and make some apologies and restitution.
But, I don't believe Apple's success is based on lying and thievery (some people do), so my guess is that this is just all sour grapes because Apple decided to go with another vendor's solution.
It's also possible that everything was aboveboard and Apple is still "guilty" of patent infringement because Noise Free got to the patent office first even though Audience and/or Apple independently invented something very similar. That would be very different that Apple stealing the technology as alleged.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed
Why would Apple even bother doing this, wouldn't it have been easier to just buy their tech? Clearly, Audience had better tech and Apple choose them instead. I wonder what proof there is that Apple 'stole' anything.
Why buy when you can steal, then kill it in courts with deep pockets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Sounds like you already know what happened.
No, he just knows how to read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
Why buy when you can steal, then kill it in courts with deep pockets.
I expect this to drag on in a very expensive manner, with apple filing many, many motions and getting bitched out by the judge, frivolous counterclaims up the wazoo, many, many false starts and ratholes of distraction.
When the plaintiffs are at the breaking point, emotionally and financially, then Apple will settle. Their total cost to Apple will be less than it would have been to simply license the tech in the first place, yielding a big financial win for Apple.
Do you write fiction for a living?
They murdered women in Salem based on more evidence than we have so far heard!
I doubt it could be for a living.
Based on Apple's dangerous precedent, Noise Free Wireless should ask for an injunction against the sale of the iPhone 4s in the US.
and whilst we're at it, Tim Cook can stop being arrogant and pretending Apple are the inventors for the world, when everyone knows they copy as much if not more from everyone else.
Haha excellent sarcasm. Too funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shao
Based on Apple's dangerous precedent, Noise Free Wireless should ask for an injunction against the sale of the iPhone 4s in the US.
and whilst we're at it, Tim Cook can stop being arrogant and pretending Apple are the inventors for the world, when everyone knows they copy as much if not more from everyone else.
It warms my heart to see that Tim Cook is a lot like Steve Jobs when it comes to Apple's pride in their products. And it also warms my heart to see that drive certain folks bat-shit crazy.
Apple, LONG AGO, decided to use the patent system to go about patenting things, with the natural expectation that they will work to enforce their patents.
This opportunity was open to EVERYONE. There are many, as we're seeing, who didn't take it. Too bad.
Apple is the new Microsoft, sheeps.
Of course. I was entirely in favor of Koh asking Samsung's attorneys if they could tell the difference between an iPad and a Tab.
No one has denied Google or Samsung or anyone else due process. Why should Apple be denied due process, as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Noise canceling headphones have been around for decades now. I'm surprised that somebody doesn't already have a patent on the technology. Those decades old products seem to work on a similar principle as the patent diagram in the OP, with an extra mic picking up ambient noise.
I believe the major difference in noise cancelling headphones and noise cancelling Mics is that it's easier to cancel out the former because all you want to hear is what is coming through the wire. ( forgive my terminology here, I'm not an engineer ) You have a pure signal as your "primary" and a random signal as your ambient noise you want cancelled.
With a Microphone, you have what you want to process ( the person's voice ) as part of the Primary signal coming from the mic, but the noise comes with it. You have to use your secondary source with even greater ambient noise which includes the tertiary source of the speaker noise to filter against. That would seem to be far more complex to me. ( but again I'm not an engineer so take this with a grain of salt )
Quote:
Originally Posted by shao
Based on Apple's dangerous precedent, Noise Free Wireless should ask for an injunction against the sale of the iPhone 4s in the US.
They are indeed asking for that. Many other products too, including the various iPads and the iPhone 4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
They murdered women in Salem based on more evidence than we have so far heard!
Did you read the complaint? If not, you should.
Unless this company is defrauding the court, Apple's got some 'splaining to do.
EDIT - forgot quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
Would you be willing to give Google the same benefit of the doubt? Or Samsung?
BROVO!!!!
speaking of samsung - someone actually cloned them - lol - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UAGXqKyWfac#!
Have you ever read a legal complaint that didn't make a good sounding case? It wouldn't be a very good complaint if it didn't. Does that make it true? By your apparent logic we don't need trials, just believe a complaint on face value and move on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
Did you read the entire story ?
A lot of 'claims' but no proof. They haven't even proven that Apple used anything close to their tech much less took it from them.
Why doesn't Noise Free sue it's rival? Sounds like a fishing expedition.
I'm as big an Apple fan as anyone, and I expect my reaction is fairly typical:
1. I have confidence/faith in Apple as a company and therefore I doubt that this story is true as characterized by the complainant. I'm sure there were meeting, etc., but I doubt that Apple used illegal and inappropriate means to steal the ideas.
2. Having said that, it's possible that it's true, in which case I will be disappointed in Apple.
3. Especially if they don't handle it appropriately. For example, there are bad apples (no pun intended) in any organization, and it's possible that some individuals did some illegal/immoral things based on the meetings and samples. If that's the case (and it wasn't some top-down decision--assuming anything happened at all) then I would hope that Apple, on learning this would fire some people and make some apologies and restitution.
But, I don't believe Apple's success is based on lying and thievery (some people do), so my guess is that this is just all sour grapes because Apple decided to go with another vendor's solution.
It's also possible that everything was aboveboard and Apple is still "guilty" of patent infringement because Noise Free got to the patent office first even though Audience and/or Apple independently invented something very similar. That would be very different that Apple stealing the technology as alleged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
A lot of 'claims' but no proof. They haven't even proven that Apple used anything close to their tech much less took it from them.
Of course not. That would require the case being tried wouldn't it?