Google argues popular Apple patents are de facto standards essential

1235714

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 275
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post


     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    I suspect you'd be similarly annoyed if someone sprinkled this forum with pro-Leninist references. No need to bring ridiculous, outdated and failed political philosophies into a tech forum.


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     



     


    Ayn Rand's philosophy dovetails nicely into free market capitalism, quite different from Leninism and it perfectly illustrated the point being made.

  • Reply 82 of 275
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post


     




    You're forgetting patent trolls. They are a clear sign of a failed patent system.


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     



     


    I don't believe in "patent trolls". I believe in IP as property, and thus the property may be used in any form it's owner wishes.

  • Reply 83 of 275
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    quadra 610 wrote: »
    Google:

    "We aren't first movers. We're asking for something (free ride) in compensation for our slowness."

    OR

    "We had this kind of tech, too. We were just too friggin stupid to think of patenting it."

    OR

    "We just randomly steal shit without thinking of the repercussions, and then raise all hell when people start catching on."

    You be the judge. 

    This isn't new for Google. Think back to Google Books. They felt like it was OK to simply copy every printed work they could find and publish it on the Internet without the copyright holder's permission. After enough authors complained, they asked Congress to change the laws to allow them to do it without the copyright holder's permission.

    so multitouch should belong to one company?
    morons.

    The morons would be the people who don't understand patents and act like they do. No one said Apple should own multitouch. They said that Apple should own the rights TO THEIR OWN IMPLEMENTATION of multitouch. Google is free to come up with their own, too.

    freediverx wrote: »
    You're forgetting patent trolls. They are a clear sign of a failed patent system.
     

    How is something that doesn't exist a sign of a failed patent system?

    The problem is that all the people whining about 'patent trolls' don't understand the concept of intellectual property. A patent is property that you can buy, sell, license, use, not use, etc as you wish - just like any other property.

    Think of a patent as a factory. If you own a factory, you have the right to leave it empty (unused) if you wish. You can use it yourself to product product. You can rent it out to someone else to produce product. You can wait until the rents increase to a higher level before renting it own. But no one else has the right to take over the factory simply because they don't like what the factory owner is doing with it.
    fredaroony wrote: »
    You were forced against your will to use any of these items? 

    Yes. I have a family to feed and using Windows was necessary. Next question.
  • Reply 84 of 275
    Funny thing is, one of the most blatant examples of ripping oft in the mobile phone arena (behind Samsung and their shameless ripping off of Apple) is Apple's shameless ripping off of the Android notification panel.
  • Reply 85 of 275
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post


    It's not reason at all, how did that personally effect you directly?



     


    According to your logic, one is only "allowed" to hate something if it affects them directly?  


     


    Warlords in Africa?  No problem, doesn't affect me directly.  


     


    Racism?  Nah, I'm white.  


     


    Child abusers?  I'm not a child, what's the big deal.


     


    In my book it's perfectly fine to be disgusted with, or even "hate," people (and organizations) that behave in detestable ways.  I'm sure you'll sleep easier now :-)

  • Reply 86 of 275
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



    Yes. I have a family to feed and using Windows was necessary. Next question.


     


    That isn't the same thing. No one "forced" you to buy Windows. You decided it fit your needs better and you bought it.

  • Reply 87 of 275
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post







    Yes. I have a family to feed and using Windows was necessary. Next question.


    Get a different job then if using Windows effects your well being so much. 

  • Reply 88 of 275
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by malax View Post


     


    According to your logic, one is only "allowed" to hate something if it affects them directly?  


     


    Warlords in Africa?  No problem, doesn't affect me directly.  


     


    Racism?  Nah, I'm white.  


     


    Child abusers?  I'm not a child, what's the big deal.


     


    In my book it's perfectly fine to be disgusted with, or even "hate," people (and organizations) that behave in detestable ways.  I'm sure you'll sleep easier now :-)



    Good point, now show me where Google is a Warlord, Racist or a Child abuser.

  • Reply 89 of 275
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


     


    That isn't the same thing. No one "forced" you to buy Windows. You decided it fit your needs better and you bought it.



    Exactly but I'm sure he will come back with some more illogical arguments...

  • Reply 90 of 275
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    People still mock Siri even if it is useful...and who mocked multitouch?
    Point is Apple didn't invent multitouch and without the other companies actually advancing the technology it couldn't even exist. Capacitive screens allow for multitouch, not Apple.
    So there's only one way to implement mulit-touch on a capactiive screen? And there 's only one way to unlock a phone?
  • Reply 91 of 275
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,423member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post





    People still mock Siri even if it is useful...and who mocked multitouch?

    Point is Apple didn't invent multitouch and without the other companies actually advancing the technology it couldn't even exist. Capacitive screens allow for multitouch, not Apple.


     

    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    We had various forms of touch input for years and they all sucked until the first iPhone came out. It's not just about the hardware but the software as well.


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     
  • Reply 92 of 275
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post


    Yes but it didn't happen to me...just like I'm sure it didn't happen to Hill60.



     


    When they came a snooping they would have found a locked network there.


     


    What I dislike is their absolute disregard for my privacy.


     


    "For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable." Bruce Schneier 2006


     


     


    image

  • Reply 93 of 275
    adamiigsadamiigs Posts: 355member


    So google steals something, says "we can't figure out our own way to do it, so apple's way should be the standard because it's the best way to do it".  BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 

  • Reply 94 of 275
    swiftswift Posts: 436member


    Google has done it forever. They scanned all those books without lifting a hand to see what the copyright situation was. They found it bo-ring. To be on a Google database should be an honor!


     


    Google Music is only a place to store your own. The Google TV never spent a second worrying about rights. They just wanted to play the movies wherever they were, no credit. No opportunity to buy or rent. 


     


    They are defective and psychopathic about intellectual property, until it's theirs.

  • Reply 95 of 275
    swiftswift Posts: 436member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post



    Funny thing is, one of the most blatant examples of ripping oft in the mobile phone arena (behind Samsung and their shameless ripping off of Apple) is Apple's shameless ripping off of the Android notification panel.


     


    Um, tell me, did Google patent it? Copyright it? Bet you they didn't.

  • Reply 96 of 275

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     


    When they came a snooping they would have found a locked network there.


     


    What I dislike is their absolute disregard for my privacy.


     


    "For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable." Bruce Schneier 2006


     


     


    image



    More like IF they came snooping as you have no idea if they did or not. Dislike all you want but using the word hate against something a company just makes people look juvenile. 

  • Reply 97 of 275
    rioviva wrote: »
    I actually agree with Google. On that note, I think their search algorithms have become essential for the industry. As much as I've tried switching to Bing or Yahoo, I keep coming back to Google's engine.
    Those algorithms should be de facto standards and licensed under FRAND
    Brilliant first post!
  • Reply 98 of 275
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post


    More like IF they came snooping as you have no idea if they did or not. Dislike all you want but using the word hate against something a company just makes people look juvenile. 



     


    They did, the evidence is the streetview picture of my house in Google maps taken prior to them being caught.

  • Reply 99 of 275
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Funny thing is, one of the most blatant examples of ripping oft in the mobile phone arena (behind Samsung and their shameless ripping off of Apple) is Apple's shameless ripping off of the Android notification panel.

    Why is it when Apple invents something people bring up the silliest examples of prior art like a photo frame, a video mockup of what the future might hold, Star Trek, or some early hominid tablet found in a cave in Southern France, but when it comes to Google prior art all of a sudden has so little meaning that an actual feature (note, not even a product) that was on devices of the same type in the same time frame means nothing?
  • Reply 100 of 275

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     


    They did, the evidence is the streetview picture of my house in Google maps.



    Ahh so you know for a certainty that Google was trying to get access to your personal wireless network when the picture of your house was taken?

Sign In or Register to comment.