Here you have one side of a story. They have no idea if Apple had also been testing technology from Audience or others during this period. Until that is made clear then you can't side with either party unless noise free can prove that their exact algorithm was used on the iPhone.
I happen to agree with you. Until apple and Audiences side of the story comes out we are just speculating. It could be that audience had a competing tech that was similar to Noisefree and the actual culprit of copying may be audience not apple. Apple may have just chosen a competing product after comparing the two.
Update:
Just browsing Audiences website I found this:
"Audience was founded by Dr. Watts to create a company that would commercialize auditory neuroscience for the mass market. From that foundation, the company began development of products based on the science of human hearing, creating its earSmart™ intelligent voice technology. earSmart Advanced Voice processors work like the human ear to enhance voice quality and suppress noise, with the goal to improve communications for the mobile, telecom and computing markets. The company’s first voice processor chip was introduced for mobile phones in 2008."
So it would seem that Audience tech was already on the market before Noisefree. They got the patent there suing over in 2010, applied for in 2007.
Also Audience has over 55 patents either pending or granted:
"Audience Achievements
earSmart voice processors are featured in over 50 handsets from leading brands such as Samsung, LG, HTC, Sharp, and Pantech, offered by AT&T, Docomo, SKT, and more.
Audience introduced its voice technology in the U.S. market with the Nexus One phone from Google/HTC in January, 2010.
Audience expanded its U.S. presence by bringing its earSmart technology to a wide selection of AT&T mobile phones, starting in the spring of 2010.
Audience’s first DSP voice processor launched in April 2008 at the CTIA Wireless trade show.
Over 55 patents have been issued or are in process for our technology.
Audience has earned industry recognition for its innovations: named to the FierceWireless “Fierce 15” 2011 list of top privately-held wireless companies recognized for industry innovation; selected a short-list nominee for the 2011 GSMA Global Mobile Awards – Best Mobile Technology Breakthrough for technological achievement and innovation; selected as the Silver Winner in the 2008 Wall Street Journal “Technology Innovation Awards”, and winner of the Semiconductor Category; winner of the 2008 GSMA Mobile Innovation Global Award for “Most Innovative True Mobile Start-up”.
Just food for thought untill we know both sides of the story it all of these click bait stories are just that click bait and worthless and all of this is just pure speculation.
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.
Plenty of them don't make a good case. Indeed, there are motions available to kill the case before it even begins due to the failure to state a claim within the complaint. The defense of failure to state a claim is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and in similar state court rules.
and nowhere, from anything I said, could one conclude that I was saying " we don't need trials, just believe a complaint on face value and move on."
If the ideas they "stole" aren't patentable, there's no theft.
Trade secret law does not depend upon the idea being patentable. For example, a product launch date could be a trade secret, and revealing it could be against the law, but the launch date is not able to be patented.
To my mind, the strongest argument against NoiseFree's claims is that they don't make any sense. NoiseFree alleges that Apple stole their technology and gave it to NoiseFree's competitor, and then licensed it from that competitor. Why would they do that? What sense does that make? Don't tell me they would do that to save $0.05/unit.
One reason might be that the competitor had expertise that Apple lacked, and could therefore more efficiently develop the ideas for Apple. I'm not sure that such a scenario "don't make any sense".
They also allege that some of their technology was found in Apple's patent filing. This also makes no sense. If NoiseFree had patented their own technology, and also had prior art, Apple wouldn't have any invention to patent.
Trade secrets might have been used rather than previously patented tech. Again, such a scenario would make sense. I have no idea of what the actual facts are, but their allegations are not senseless.
NoiseFree seems to be under the impression that one can patent an idea, which is not the case.
To my mind, the strongest argument against NoiseFree's claims is that they don't make any sense. NoiseFree alleges that Apple stole their technology and gave it to NoiseFree's competitor, and then licensed it from that competitor. Why would they do that? What sense does that make? Don't tell me they would do that to save $0.05/unit.
They also allege that some of their technology was found in Apple's patent filing. This also makes no sense. If NoiseFree had patented their own technology, and also had prior art, Apple wouldn't have any invention to patent.
NoiseFree seems to be under the impression that one can patent an idea, which is not the case.
Wow. when other companies patent an "idea" with no real hardware, then it is "not the case"
When apple patents an "idea" that they "might make" in the future, then its all good. Apple is known for filing a lot of patents for even tech that they don't have yet. They only had an "idea" of how to do it.
Apple is great at sounding like they did it first, or that they really invented an idea, but that is how broken the patent system is. Apple is one of the biggest exploiters of this system.
Wow. when other companies patent an "idea" with no real hardware, then it is "not the case"
When apple patents an "idea" that they "might make" in the future, then its all good. Apple is known for filing a lot of patents for even tech that they don't have yet. They only had an "idea" of how to do it.
Apple is great at sounding like they did it first, or that they really invented an idea, but that is how broken the patent system is. Apple is one of the biggest exploiters of this system.
Please point to cases where Apple has tried to patent an idea.
In reality, Apple is bound by the same rules as everyone else. You can't patent an idea. The problem is that all the whiners here are confused about what is an 'idea' and what is an 'invention'. For example, 'unlocking a phone' is an idea and is not patentable. A specific mechanism for unlocking the phone (like swiping along a pre-defined path) is a invention and is patentable. It is almost always the case that people who complain about Apple patenting an idea don't understand the difference.
1. We don't insult Apple here. That should be blatantly obvious.
2. We don't use the word "fanboy" here.
3. Your link has nothing to do with your statement.
1. We don't insult Apple here. That should be blatantly obvious.
2. We don't use the word "fanboy" here.
3. Your link has nothing to do with your statement.
Is that myapplelove's new alias? Same inane comment style.
Apple to me is just one of those greedy and ruthless corporate monstrosities out there..
Apple fanboys and fangirls are a different matter... I tryly feel sorry for them
The link lists patent lawsuits where Apple is mostly on the receiving end
- A good number of those suits in your linked page show Apple on the offense (as in defending their IP - just take a look at the FIRST TWO suits in your list)
- Lawsuits filed doesn't mean actual infringement happened (read some of the things you link, some suits have been dismissed because of prior art - or my favorite was the one that was invalidated because the patent applicant LIED in the patent filing about the origins of the "invention")
- Some of those aren't even IP infringement lawsuits (declaratory judgements on already listed cases, for example)
- Some of those patents are listing Apple as just one of <many> defendants in obvious fishing expeditions, for ridiculous "patents" that try to patent an obvious, and/or pre-existing technology or process - although most of those are in East Texas
- Many of them are filed in East Texas ... 'nuff said there
If you use the same website and search for any other company the size of Apple, you get about the same number of results. You proved absolutely nothing by posting that link.
Funny thing is, you could've got way more results by just using google, and they would've just as meaningful (as in not at all) in supporting your statement. Hell I searched for "apple patent infringement" and got over 1.7 million results - that must mean 1.7+ million cases of infringement, right? Those bastards. :P
I feel sorry for you (and your epic trolling fail). But just kinda', I'm also laughing at you ... a LOT ... no really, I almost peed myself.
Please point to cases where Apple has tried to patent an idea.
In reality, Apple is bound by the same rules as everyone else. You can't patent an idea. The problem is that all the whiners here are confused about what is an 'idea' and what is an 'invention'. For example, 'unlocking a phone' is an idea and is not patentable. A specific mechanism for unlocking the phone (like swiping along a pre-defined path) is a invention and is patentable. It is almost always the case that people who complain about Apple patenting an idea don't understand the difference.
So what specific ideas has Apple tried to patent?
Everyone and his brother knows that? How about some evidence?
Not Apple, but Amazon got a patent for "one-click" which Apple was forced to license. IMO, the idea of making one click to purchase an item is nothing more than that - an obvious idea. No more special, unique or patentable than the express line at the supermarket. Amazon shouldn't have been able to patent that. But they did and the courts found it valid (incorrectly in my opinion). I see lots of patents for things like "storing a file". This is all ridiculous. Patents were supposed to be about a unique implementation of an idea, not the idea itself. It's a good thing you can't patent media ideas because if you could, someone would have gotten a patent on "a western", "a comedy", "science-fiction", etc.
Please point to cases where Apple has tried to patent an idea.
In reality, Apple is bound by the same rules as everyone else. You can't patent an idea. The problem is that all the whiners here are confused about what is an 'idea' and what is an 'invention'. For example, 'unlocking a phone' is an idea and is not patentable. A specific mechanism for unlocking the phone (like swiping along a pre-defined path) is a invention and is patentable. It is almost always the case that people who complain about Apple patenting an idea don't understand the difference.
So what specific ideas has Apple tried to patent?
Everyone and his brother knows that? How about some evidence?
How can you invent something you couldn't make yet? For me, as long as there is no physical representation of what you "invented" it is still just an idea. I mean, if I can do that, I will patent my hologram ideas now.
Another good example of an IDEA they had back in 2006 that they couldn't make yet. Google glass shows up and they push for the patent to be approved because they now see that the IDEA can be implemented now in today's tech.
An invention is a proven concept that can be IMPLEMENTED. Unless you are able to implement an IDEA, then it shouldn't be called an invention yet.
Just to be clear, I don't hate Apple in general. they have some of the best products for sure, but I hate the patent trolling they do
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.
you blatantly did not read the story, or understand what actually happened.
I expect that of the people here to take calm collected criticism as some form of "bat-shit crazy" talk.. no. Apple fucked up, and Tim is hypocritical and ignorant for making a comment like that. It makes him genuinely look out of touch when apple get burnt by the system they're playing dangerously.
precedents that are there to be set, are then used by other parties. That's how a precedent works. Apple, genuinely have set a dangerous one by blocking sales of competitor devices over such a small software patent like this. I'm sure we'll see other business up their game and use the same tactics.. Maybe you'll be laughing on the other side of your smug face when you can't purchase an iDevice down the line because they got gamed... although i suspect you'll be weaping like a butt-hurt basement dweller. Good luck with that.
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.
Hang on buddy... Do you mean that apple lied to the US courts when they told them that they invented touch screen phones?
TBh, I was shocked when I read the following exert from the Samsung case
"Before the iPhone, cell phones were utilitarian devices with key pads for dialing and small, passive display screens that did not allow for touch control."
Personally, I can't see how the author would expect any reasonable person to interpret the above as any but "apple invented touch screen phones".
(For the benefit of other members), there were touch screen phones with screens ranging from small to 5" prior to the release of the iPhone
Later they also say that the 2007 iPhone could "run diverse pre-installed and downloadable applications,". Does nobody proof read what the legal teams write?
Comments
I happen to agree with you. Until apple and Audiences side of the story comes out we are just speculating. It could be that audience had a competing tech that was similar to Noisefree and the actual culprit of copying may be audience not apple. Apple may have just chosen a competing product after comparing the two.
Update:
Just browsing Audiences website I found this:
"Audience was founded by Dr. Watts to create a company that would commercialize auditory neuroscience for the mass market. From that foundation, the company began development of products based on the science of human hearing, creating its earSmart™ intelligent voice technology. earSmart Advanced Voice processors work like the human ear to enhance voice quality and suppress noise, with the goal to improve communications for the mobile, telecom and computing markets. The company’s first voice processor chip was introduced for mobile phones in 2008."
So it would seem that Audience tech was already on the market before Noisefree. They got the patent there suing over in 2010, applied for in 2007.
Also Audience has over 55 patents either pending or granted:
"Audience Achievements
earSmart voice processors are featured in over 50 handsets from leading brands such as Samsung, LG, HTC, Sharp, and Pantech, offered by AT&T, Docomo, SKT, and more.
Audience introduced its voice technology in the U.S. market with the Nexus One phone from Google/HTC in January, 2010.
Audience expanded its U.S. presence by bringing its earSmart technology to a wide selection of AT&T mobile phones, starting in the spring of 2010.
Audience’s first DSP voice processor launched in April 2008 at the CTIA Wireless trade show.
Over 55 patents have been issued or are in process for our technology.
Audience has earned industry recognition for its innovations: named to the FierceWireless “Fierce 15” 2011 list of top privately-held wireless companies recognized for industry innovation; selected a short-list nominee for the 2011 GSMA Global Mobile Awards – Best Mobile Technology Breakthrough for technological achievement and innovation; selected as the Silver Winner in the 2008 Wall Street Journal “Technology Innovation Awards”, and winner of the Semiconductor Category; winner of the 2008 GSMA Mobile Innovation Global Award for “Most Innovative True Mobile Start-up”.
Just food for thought untill we know both sides of the story it all of these click bait stories are just that click bait and worthless and all of this is just pure speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
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.
Plenty of them don't make a good case. Indeed, there are motions available to kill the case before it even begins due to the failure to state a claim within the complaint. The defense of failure to state a claim is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and in similar state court rules.
and nowhere, from anything I said, could one conclude that I was saying " we don't need trials, just believe a complaint on face value and move on."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe
If the ideas they "stole" aren't patentable, there's no theft.
Trade secret law does not depend upon the idea being patentable. For example, a product launch date could be a trade secret, and revealing it could be against the law, but the launch date is not able to be patented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by williamh
To my mind, the strongest argument against NoiseFree's claims is that they don't make any sense. NoiseFree alleges that Apple stole their technology and gave it to NoiseFree's competitor, and then licensed it from that competitor. Why would they do that? What sense does that make? Don't tell me they would do that to save $0.05/unit.
One reason might be that the competitor had expertise that Apple lacked, and could therefore more efficiently develop the ideas for Apple. I'm not sure that such a scenario "don't make any sense".
They also allege that some of their technology was found in Apple's patent filing. This also makes no sense. If NoiseFree had patented their own technology, and also had prior art, Apple wouldn't have any invention to patent.
Trade secrets might have been used rather than previously patented tech. Again, such a scenario would make sense. I have no idea of what the actual facts are, but their allegations are not senseless.
NoiseFree seems to be under the impression that one can patent an idea, which is not the case.
This is the second time Audience gets sued for patent infringement in less than 2 months after its IPO.
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/05/07/audience-hit-with-pre-ipo-lawsuit/
As for Apple, everyone and his brother knows that Apple is one of the worst patent infringers out there. No news here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by williamh
To my mind, the strongest argument against NoiseFree's claims is that they don't make any sense. NoiseFree alleges that Apple stole their technology and gave it to NoiseFree's competitor, and then licensed it from that competitor. Why would they do that? What sense does that make? Don't tell me they would do that to save $0.05/unit.
They also allege that some of their technology was found in Apple's patent filing. This also makes no sense. If NoiseFree had patented their own technology, and also had prior art, Apple wouldn't have any invention to patent.
NoiseFree seems to be under the impression that one can patent an idea, which is not the case.
Wow. when other companies patent an "idea" with no real hardware, then it is "not the case"
When apple patents an "idea" that they "might make" in the future, then its all good. Apple is known for filing a lot of patents for even tech that they don't have yet. They only had an "idea" of how to do it.
Apple is great at sounding like they did it first, or that they really invented an idea, but that is how broken the patent system is. Apple is one of the biggest exploiters of this system.
Please point to cases where Apple has tried to patent an idea.
In reality, Apple is bound by the same rules as everyone else. You can't patent an idea. The problem is that all the whiners here are confused about what is an 'idea' and what is an 'invention'. For example, 'unlocking a phone' is an idea and is not patentable. A specific mechanism for unlocking the phone (like swiping along a pre-defined path) is a invention and is patentable. It is almost always the case that people who complain about Apple patenting an idea don't understand the difference.
So what specific ideas has Apple tried to patent?
Everyone and his brother knows that? How about some evidence?
Quote:
Everyone and his brother knows that? How about some evidence?
http://dockets.justia.com/search?query=apple&nos=830
Poor, poor crapple fanboy.. So sad...
1. We don't insult Apple here. That should be blatantly obvious.
2. We don't use the word "fanboy" here.
3. Your link has nothing to do with your statement.
Is that myapplelove's new alias? Same inane comment style.
Apple to me is just one of those greedy and ruthless corporate monstrosities out there..
Apple fanboys and fangirls are a different matter... I tryly feel sorry for them
The link lists patent lawsuits where Apple is mostly on the receiving end
And your grand plan being here is to enlighten us out of mindless servitude.
Good luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryDude
Apple to me is just one of those greedy and ruthless corporate monstrosities out there..
Apple fanboys and fangirls are a different matter... I tryly feel sorry for them
The link lists patent lawsuits where Apple is mostly on the receiving end
- A good number of those suits in your linked page show Apple on the offense (as in defending their IP - just take a look at the FIRST TWO suits in your list)
- Lawsuits filed doesn't mean actual infringement happened (read some of the things you link, some suits have been dismissed because of prior art - or my favorite was the one that was invalidated because the patent applicant LIED in the patent filing about the origins of the "invention")
- Some of those aren't even IP infringement lawsuits (declaratory judgements on already listed cases, for example)
- Some of those patents are listing Apple as just one of <many> defendants in obvious fishing expeditions, for ridiculous "patents" that try to patent an obvious, and/or pre-existing technology or process - although most of those are in East Texas
- Many of them are filed in East Texas ... 'nuff said there
If you use the same website and search for any other company the size of Apple, you get about the same number of results. You proved absolutely nothing by posting that link.
Funny thing is, you could've got way more results by just using google, and they would've just as meaningful (as in not at all) in supporting your statement. Hell I searched for "apple patent infringement" and got over 1.7 million results - that must mean 1.7+ million cases of infringement, right? Those bastards. :P
I feel sorry for you (and your epic trolling fail). But just kinda', I'm also laughing at you ... a LOT ... no really, I almost peed myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Please point to cases where Apple has tried to patent an idea.
In reality, Apple is bound by the same rules as everyone else. You can't patent an idea. The problem is that all the whiners here are confused about what is an 'idea' and what is an 'invention'. For example, 'unlocking a phone' is an idea and is not patentable. A specific mechanism for unlocking the phone (like swiping along a pre-defined path) is a invention and is patentable. It is almost always the case that people who complain about Apple patenting an idea don't understand the difference.
So what specific ideas has Apple tried to patent?
Everyone and his brother knows that? How about some evidence?
Not Apple, but Amazon got a patent for "one-click" which Apple was forced to license. IMO, the idea of making one click to purchase an item is nothing more than that - an obvious idea. No more special, unique or patentable than the express line at the supermarket. Amazon shouldn't have been able to patent that. But they did and the courts found it valid (incorrectly in my opinion). I see lots of patents for things like "storing a file". This is all ridiculous. Patents were supposed to be about a unique implementation of an idea, not the idea itself. It's a good thing you can't patent media ideas because if you could, someone would have gotten a patent on "a western", "a comedy", "science-fiction", etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Please point to cases where Apple has tried to patent an idea.
In reality, Apple is bound by the same rules as everyone else. You can't patent an idea. The problem is that all the whiners here are confused about what is an 'idea' and what is an 'invention'. For example, 'unlocking a phone' is an idea and is not patentable. A specific mechanism for unlocking the phone (like swiping along a pre-defined path) is a invention and is patentable. It is almost always the case that people who complain about Apple patenting an idea don't understand the difference.
So what specific ideas has Apple tried to patent?
Everyone and his brother knows that? How about some evidence?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402002,00.asp
Just an idea. No real hardware. they are just thinking that "something around that effect" nothing specific
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/06/20/apple-patents-technique-that-uses-cloned-doppelgangers-to-protect-your-privacy/
How can you invent something you couldn't make yet? For me, as long as there is no physical representation of what you "invented" it is still just an idea. I mean, if I can do that, I will patent my hologram ideas now.
http://mashable.com/2012/07/05/apple-patent-google-glass/
Another good example of an IDEA they had back in 2006 that they couldn't make yet. Google glass shows up and they push for the patent to be approved because they now see that the IDEA can be implemented now in today's tech.
An invention is a proven concept that can be IMPLEMENTED. Unless you are able to implement an IDEA, then it shouldn't be called an invention yet.
Just to be clear, I don't hate Apple in general. they have some of the best products for sure, but I hate the patent trolling they do
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
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.
you blatantly did not read the story, or understand what actually happened.
I expect that of the people here to take calm collected criticism as some form of "bat-shit crazy" talk.. no. Apple fucked up, and Tim is hypocritical and ignorant for making a comment like that. It makes him genuinely look out of touch when apple get burnt by the system they're playing dangerously.
precedents that are there to be set, are then used by other parties. That's how a precedent works. Apple, genuinely have set a dangerous one by blocking sales of competitor devices over such a small software patent like this. I'm sure we'll see other business up their game and use the same tactics.. Maybe you'll be laughing on the other side of your smug face when you can't purchase an iDevice down the line because they got gamed... although i suspect you'll be weaping like a butt-hurt basement dweller. Good luck with that.
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.
Hang on buddy... Do you mean that apple lied to the US courts when they told them that they invented touch screen phones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover
Hang on buddy... Do you mean that apple lied to the US courts when they told them that they invented touch screen phones?
I don't recall that ever being said. Link?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I don't recall that ever being said. Link?
TBh, I was shocked when I read the following exert from the Samsung case
"Before the iPhone, cell phones were utilitarian devices with key pads for dialing and small, passive display screens that did not allow for touch control."
Source http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/110415samsungcomplaint.pdf page 2 line 7/8
Personally, I can't see how the author would expect any reasonable person to interpret the above as any but "apple invented touch screen phones".
(For the benefit of other members), there were touch screen phones with screens ranging from small to 5" prior to the release of the iPhone
Later they also say that the 2007 iPhone could "run diverse pre-installed and downloadable applications,". Does nobody proof read what the legal teams write?