I gotta believe that Apple has two goals in litigating the patent infringers. The first is to punish them and receive damages. The other is to establish Apple as a company you don't want to steal from, thus avoiding litigation in the future while suppressing IP theft. This process could go on for some time, but it should eventually work as long as they keep winning.
They aren't suing anybody over this, they send out a letter like this to satisfy the requirements of showing they are protecting their trademark, if they don't do this they risk losing it.
It's a necessary formality, no matter how much people want to build mountains out of molehills.
The German woman should have thought about that before opening up a cafe called Applebaby and then trying to trademark an Apple as their logo, when a certain tech company, the largest and most successful on the planet, already has kind of slightly been associated with that same fruit for many decades now.
the logo looks nothing like apple inc . and i could understand if it was another tech company but for the love of god ,a coffee shop.
They aren't suing anybody over this, they send out a letter like this to satisfy the requirements of showing they are protecting their trademark, if they don't do this they risk losing it.
It's a necessary formality, no matter how much people want to build mountains out of molehills.
Yes, but this is a first step before suing. Of course they can also decide someone made a bad decision when sending this complain letter and they can decide not to sue. People make mistakes. It is not like they had a company board meeting and they decided they have to destroy this coffee shop no matter what. Lets see how it develops.
But I don't like to see Apple wants to ban Galaxy S III. Actually, I hate Apple for this. I have S II and it is a good phone and it is nothing like iPhone. I bought it because I think it is genuinely better. Without competition Apple will be stuck with their tiny 3.5" display.
this is a joke right? last i seen the 2 unlock screens have almost nothing in common. From Apple's unlock the screen you have to drag a small bar across the bottom of the screen. Otherwise on all Galaxy Devices you have so swipe the screen off in any direction. Whether it be up, down, left, right or any of 360 different directions ( seeing as originating from the middle of the screen you can vary in direction by 360 degrees).
And the search feature i believe has been an android feature since before the iPhone came out along with the voice recognition on the Google search bar to be able to speak a word and have the phone search for it.
The universal search was a feature of Apple's Sherlock App released in the late 1990s It allowed users universal search of both the computer and multiple web search engines at once in a unified interface. You could search thru multiple search engines through one interface
In today's world, it would be like searching Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc... And files on your computer all at once. (But Apple was doing that more than 12 years ago) The user would see all the results in one window, with rankings of relevance. IIRC, the Sherlock App didn't display ads? Which would explain why the app development was stopped, bc Bing, Google, and Yahoo make their money off of ads.
Apple has two swipe to unlock patents, I think the second more detailed one is at issue here?
IIRC, in the pre-iPhone era, almost all smartphones required the pressing of a hardware key to initiate an unlock screen dialog.
While some companies are contesting that patent on prior art, none of the prior art involved phones, IIRC.
Feel free to correct me with facts, but not ' it isn't fair opinions "
It's one thing to pay homage to your idol who created great design 50-60 years ago..
Who design products in a different industry.
It's a different situation to copy your current competitor's current devices aka Samsung
What happened to logic and reason? Has it escaped everyone?
Sometimes I wish there was a heavily moderated part of this forum that only allowed users to post based on their use of logic and reason. Yeah that's censorship, but I would rather engage in discussion with people that further intellectual discussions that iFans and Fandroids.
Not to worry, Tallest eventually will reach that big Four-Oh, and then he will understand your point. It sorta like my late dad once asked me about three years ago about getting him a phone with the biggest font and keys possible, so that he could easily read the screen, text a message and make phone calls easily. His eyesight was failing due diabetes, but he was still full of fight in him, so I researched then to find something that would fit his needs, but alas none was available at the time. If he were still with us, I would've given him either Galaxy Note II or Galaxy Tab 7.7 because either one of these gadgets was perfect for him. He could've zoomed through texts to his heart content and could've made his important phone calls with it as well. You just made me remember one of the guys I miss the most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrey
I don't know how old you are, but I'm mid 40-s and 3,5' are no longer big enough for my eyes. I don't want to have phone only glasses. Thus my expectations were 4'++. I don't really care about multicore and retina on a phone. This is the only part I like about S3 - screen size. I hate touchwiz and I wish it have sense and their amazing weather gadget. Again, just an opinion.
But, As I can remember correctly, back in the mid 90's, there was a search engine introduced by the DEC [now part of HPQ] called AltaVista. It was my go-to site for searching the web at the time. This search engine predated even Apple's Sherlock by at least two years because it was going online in the late 1995. It was later acquired by Yahoo. "At launch, the service had two innovations which set it ahead of the other search engines: it used a fast, multi-threaded crawler (Scooter) which could cover many more Web pages than were believed to exist at the time and an efficient search running back-end on advanced hardware."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower
The universal search was a feature of Apple's Sherlock App released in the late 1990s It allowed users universal search of both the computer and multiple web search engines at once in a unified interface. You could search thru multiple search engines through one interface
In today's world, it would be like searching Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc... And files on your computer all at once. (But Apple was doing that more than 12 years ago) The user would see all the results in one window, with rankings of relevance. IIRC, the Sherlock App didn't display ads? Which would explain why the app development was stopped, bc Bing, Google, and Yahoo make their money off of ads.
Why, you're absolutely right, you incredibly mature and thoughtful person!
Apple is childish for protecting it's intellectual property. That makes perfect sense. Why didn't I come to that conclusion earlier?
Apple should just let this whole thing slide and allow everybody in the whole entire world to rip them off, whenever they please. Apple should just install live streaming cameras in their secret R&D rooms, and broadcast them to everybody on youtube who wants to watch, since Apple has now become a charity, and everything they make from now on will be entered into the public domain.
People who get their houses broken into and robbed shouldn't bother to file a police report, because that just adds to the work load of certain people, and frankly, it's just childish to go after people who have stolen and copied from you. Women shouldn't even bother to report any rapes, as frankly, that's just childish and poses unnecessary burdens on the perpetrator.
I actually don't think this one should annoy you so much. No comments are noted on trade dress. These are just utility functions which Apple feels violate certain functional patents regardless of whether they're identical. I'm not so much referring to slide to unlock either, even though I think that patent is silly and novel. It's more the universal search and the other one. Some of these things aren't necessarily copies. They're just overlapping functions. I don't agree with you on Apple becoming a charity either. They entered a somewhat conservative market with no baggage, no concerns over fragmentation of their line, and no old code in tow. I think especially in this case your use of burglary as an analogy is just totally off base.
Yes, but this is a first step before suing. Of course they can also decide someone made a bad decision when sending this complain letter and they can decide not to sue. People make mistakes. It is not like they had a company board meeting and they decided they have to destroy this coffee shop no matter what. Lets see how it develops.
Nope, the same thing happened with Woolworth's in Australia, a letter was sent showing Apple was actively protecting their trademark.
No-one got sued.
Woolworths didn't change their logo.
Again this is merely a necessary formality to ensure a trademark holder does not risk losing their trademark.
But, As I can remember correctly, back in the mid 90's, there was a search engine introduced by the DEC [now part of HPQ] called AltaVista. It was my go-to site for searching the web at the time. This search engine predated even Apple's Sherlock by at least two years because it was going online in the late 1995. It was later acquired by Yahoo. "At launch, the service had two innovations which set it ahead of the other search engines: it used a fast, multi-threaded crawler (Scooter) which could cover many more Web pages than were believed to exist at the time and an efficient search running back-end on advanced hardware."
The point of Apple's patent is that is also searches files stored locally on the device whether they are contacts, emails, Apps, songs etc.
This isn't about web search although that is also integrated.
Apple and Samsung are fighting with the patent and everything but they didn't notice there is a lot of China imitate product in the market. I think they better solve that first.
This one's interesting. Look at the rankings: Apple leads by a long shot. Then HTC, LG, and Nokia. Samsung is near the bottom-and is declining year over year.
So much for the "Samsung succeeded by making quality products" argument that the trolls keep making. In reality, the companies which did not make slavish copies of Apple's products fell far behind in sales. Samsung makes slavish copies and passes all of the other Android OEMs.
Samsung sold 235 million mobile handsets in the year 2009.[64] At the end of the third quarter of 2010, the company had surpassed the 70 million unit mark in shipped phones, giving it a global marketshare of 22 percent, trailing Nokia by 12 percent.[65] Overall, the company sold 280 million mobile phones in 2010, corresponding to a market share of 20.2 percent.[66] Partially owing to strong sales of the Samsung Galaxy range of smartphones, the company overtook Apple in worldwide smartphone sales during the third quarter 2011, with a total market share of 23.8 percent, compared to Apple's 14.6-percent share.[67] Samsung became the world's largest cellphone maker in 2012, with the sales of 45 million smart phones in the first quarter.
thats why apple are p1ssed.
That's only a small part of the story. The real story is that Apple is pissed because Samsung moved from the bottom of the field to the top by stealing Apple's IP - as shown in the recent $1 B court case.
Funny bc Apple filed for this data tapping patent in 1996, and Google didn't exist until 1998.
When did Android start development? 2004 or 2005,, 6-7 years after the data tapping patent was published to the public.
We're the original android developer or google not vigilant enough to search for Apple's data taping patent.?
Please don't confuse the idiot trolls with facts. Their heads will explode and it leaves a horrible mess.
You know, if I were you, I'd be far more concerned about how your employer is bringing shame to your country around the world, with its ridiculous behavior.
Go away. Worry about things that should really matter to you.
Find it as offensive as you want. The American companies aren't stealing IP from the South Korean companies. And, please, let's not pretend that South Korea hasn't benefited enormously from American blood and money, that's offensive. Not rather offensive, disgustingly offensive, sickeningly offensive.
I see a few problems with your statement:
1. "American companies aren't stealing IP from South Korean companies" --> This is a very wide statement that could not possibly be true.
2. "Let's not pretend that South Korea hasn't benefited enormously from American blood and money" --> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Much of the benefits you mention I'm assuming are related to outsourced American jobs, but this happened as a consequence of American domestic policies encouraging it as a way of driving up profits. Blaming South Korea for benefiting makes no sense.
3. Are we now just equating South Korea with Samsung? If that is the case, then we might as well just equate America with Wal-Mart, a company that has plenty of well known dirty practices.
I think the $1.05 billion win was deserved (perhaps excessive, but I'm willing to give the US court system the benefit of the doubt in that that number roughly portrays Apple's losses as a consequence of Samsung's actions), but in adding the S3 and Galaxy Note Tab, they're over-extending. This case is far from over, as appeals are still on the way and in the upper courts from here on out, juries are not used. The original Galaxy S and S2 variants are very noticeably similar to Apple's designs, both inside and out, but the S3 and Galaxy Note Tab are a whole different beast. I sincerely hope that Apple's lawyers actually have a well thought out plan, and not just acting on hubris derived from winning case after case.
Comments
http://dewith.com/2012/its-not-just-phones/
Per usual, it's the same old perps...
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog
I gotta believe that Apple has two goals in litigating the patent infringers. The first is to punish them and receive damages. The other is to establish Apple as a company you don't want to steal from, thus avoiding litigation in the future while suppressing IP theft. This process could go on for some time, but it should eventually work as long as they keep winning.
Finally a post from someone who gets it.
They aren't suing anybody over this, they send out a letter like this to satisfy the requirements of showing they are protecting their trademark, if they don't do this they risk losing it.
It's a necessary formality, no matter how much people want to build mountains out of molehills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
The German woman should have thought about that before opening up a cafe called Applebaby and then trying to trademark an Apple as their logo, when a certain tech company, the largest and most successful on the planet, already has kind of slightly been associated with that same fruit for many decades now.
the logo looks nothing like apple inc . and i could understand if it was another tech company but for the love of god ,a coffee shop.
dam just shows how shallow apple are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
They aren't suing anybody over this, they send out a letter like this to satisfy the requirements of showing they are protecting their trademark, if they don't do this they risk losing it.
It's a necessary formality, no matter how much people want to build mountains out of molehills.
Yes, but this is a first step before suing. Of course they can also decide someone made a bad decision when sending this complain letter and they can decide not to sue. People make mistakes. It is not like they had a company board meeting and they decided they have to destroy this coffee shop no matter what. Lets see how it develops.
But I don't like to see Apple wants to ban Galaxy S III. Actually, I hate Apple for this. I have S II and it is a good phone and it is nothing like iPhone. I bought it because I think it is genuinely better. Without competition Apple will be stuck with their tiny 3.5" display.
Funny bc Apple filed for this data tapping patent in 1996, and Google didn't exist until 1998.
When did Android start development? 2004 or 2005,, 6-7 years after the data tapping patent was published to the public.
We're the original android developer or google not vigilant enough to search for Apple's data taping patent.?
The universal search was a feature of Apple's Sherlock App released in the late 1990s It allowed users universal search of both the computer and multiple web search engines at once in a unified interface. You could search thru multiple search engines through one interface
In today's world, it would be like searching Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc... And files on your computer all at once. (But Apple was doing that more than 12 years ago) The user would see all the results in one window, with rankings of relevance. IIRC, the Sherlock App didn't display ads? Which would explain why the app development was stopped, bc Bing, Google, and Yahoo make their money off of ads.
Apple has two swipe to unlock patents, I think the second more detailed one is at issue here?
IIRC, in the pre-iPhone era, almost all smartphones required the pressing of a hardware key to initiate an unlock screen dialog.
While some companies are contesting that patent on prior art, none of the prior art involved phones, IIRC.
Feel free to correct me with facts, but not ' it isn't fair opinions "
It's one thing to pay homage to your idol who created great design 50-60 years ago..
Who design products in a different industry.
It's a different situation to copy your current competitor's current devices aka Samsung
What happened to logic and reason? Has it escaped everyone?
Sometimes I wish there was a heavily moderated part of this forum that only allowed users to post based on their use of logic and reason. Yeah that's censorship, but I would rather engage in discussion with people that further intellectual discussions that iFans and Fandroids.
Not to worry, Tallest eventually will reach that big Four-Oh, and then he will understand your point. It sorta like my late dad once asked me about three years ago about getting him a phone with the biggest font and keys possible, so that he could easily read the screen, text a message and make phone calls easily. His eyesight was failing due diabetes, but he was still full of fight in him, so I researched then to find something that would fit his needs, but alas none was available at the time. If he were still with us, I would've given him either Galaxy Note II or Galaxy Tab 7.7 because either one of these gadgets was perfect for him. He could've zoomed through texts to his heart content and could've made his important phone calls with it as well. You just made me remember one of the guys I miss the most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrey
I don't know how old you are, but I'm mid 40-s and 3,5' are no longer big enough for my eyes. I don't want to have phone only glasses. Thus my expectations were 4'++. I don't really care about multicore and retina on a phone. This is the only part I like about S3 - screen size. I hate touchwiz and I wish it have sense and their amazing weather gadget. Again, just an opinion.
But, As I can remember correctly, back in the mid 90's, there was a search engine introduced by the DEC [now part of HPQ] called AltaVista. It was my go-to site for searching the web at the time. This search engine predated even Apple's Sherlock by at least two years because it was going online in the late 1995. It was later acquired by Yahoo. "At launch, the service had two innovations which set it ahead of the other search engines: it used a fast, multi-threaded crawler (Scooter) which could cover many more Web pages than were believed to exist at the time and an efficient search running back-end on advanced hardware."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower
The universal search was a feature of Apple's Sherlock App released in the late 1990s It allowed users universal search of both the computer and multiple web search engines at once in a unified interface. You could search thru multiple search engines through one interface
In today's world, it would be like searching Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc... And files on your computer all at once. (But Apple was doing that more than 12 years ago) The user would see all the results in one window, with rankings of relevance. IIRC, the Sherlock App didn't display ads? Which would explain why the app development was stopped, bc Bing, Google, and Yahoo make their money off of ads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Why, you're absolutely right, you incredibly mature and thoughtful person!
Apple is childish for protecting it's intellectual property. That makes perfect sense. Why didn't I come to that conclusion earlier?
Apple should just let this whole thing slide and allow everybody in the whole entire world to rip them off, whenever they please. Apple should just install live streaming cameras in their secret R&D rooms, and broadcast them to everybody on youtube who wants to watch, since Apple has now become a charity, and everything they make from now on will be entered into the public domain.
People who get their houses broken into and robbed shouldn't bother to file a police report, because that just adds to the work load of certain people, and frankly, it's just childish to go after people who have stolen and copied from you. Women shouldn't even bother to report any rapes, as frankly, that's just childish and poses unnecessary burdens on the perpetrator.
I actually don't think this one should annoy you so much. No comments are noted on trade dress. These are just utility functions which Apple feels violate certain functional patents regardless of whether they're identical. I'm not so much referring to slide to unlock either, even though I think that patent is silly and novel. It's more the universal search and the other one. Some of these things aren't necessarily copies. They're just overlapping functions. I don't agree with you on Apple becoming a charity either. They entered a somewhat conservative market with no baggage, no concerns over fragmentation of their line, and no old code in tow. I think especially in this case your use of burglary as an analogy is just totally off base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xmiku
Yes, but this is a first step before suing. Of course they can also decide someone made a bad decision when sending this complain letter and they can decide not to sue. People make mistakes. It is not like they had a company board meeting and they decided they have to destroy this coffee shop no matter what. Lets see how it develops.
Nope, the same thing happened with Woolworth's in Australia, a letter was sent showing Apple was actively protecting their trademark.
No-one got sued.
Woolworths didn't change their logo.
Again this is merely a necessary formality to ensure a trademark holder does not risk losing their trademark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Tim Cook's smile is so convincing. Doesn't look like it's forced one little bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs
But, As I can remember correctly, back in the mid 90's, there was a search engine introduced by the DEC [now part of HPQ] called AltaVista. It was my go-to site for searching the web at the time. This search engine predated even Apple's Sherlock by at least two years because it was going online in the late 1995. It was later acquired by Yahoo. "At launch, the service had two innovations which set it ahead of the other search engines: it used a fast, multi-threaded crawler (Scooter) which could cover many more Web pages than were believed to exist at the time and an efficient search running back-end on advanced hardware."
The point of Apple's patent is that is also searches files stored locally on the device whether they are contacts, emails, Apps, songs etc.
This isn't about web search although that is also integrated.
Apple and Samsung are fighting with the patent and everything but they didn't notice there is a lot of China imitate product in the market. I think they better solve that first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vitaminjayz
your a complete idiot .
the logo looks nothing like apple inc . and i could understand if it was another tech company but for the love of god ,a coffee shop.
dam just shows how shallow apple are.
Not all apple sir!
This one's interesting. Look at the rankings: Apple leads by a long shot. Then HTC, LG, and Nokia. Samsung is near the bottom-and is declining year over year.
So much for the "Samsung succeeded by making quality products" argument that the trolls keep making. In reality, the companies which did not make slavish copies of Apple's products fell far behind in sales. Samsung makes slavish copies and passes all of the other Android OEMs.
And Apple's market cap is several times Samsung's. I guess the market understands that Samsung is simply a big copyist.
That's only a small part of the story. The real story is that Apple is pissed because Samsung moved from the bottom of the field to the top by stealing Apple's IP - as shown in the recent $1 B court case.
Please don't confuse the idiot trolls with facts. Their heads will explode and it leaves a horrible mess.
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Tim Cook's smile is so convincing. Doesn't look like it's forced one little bit.
He's far better at frownsmiling. Subconsciously, he defaults to it.
You know, if I were you, I'd be far more concerned about how your employer is bringing shame to your country around the world, with its ridiculous behavior.
Go away. Worry about things that should really matter to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Find it as offensive as you want. The American companies aren't stealing IP from the South Korean companies. And, please, let's not pretend that South Korea hasn't benefited enormously from American blood and money, that's offensive. Not rather offensive, disgustingly offensive, sickeningly offensive.
I see a few problems with your statement:
1. "American companies aren't stealing IP from South Korean companies" --> This is a very wide statement that could not possibly be true.
2. "Let's not pretend that South Korea hasn't benefited enormously from American blood and money" --> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Much of the benefits you mention I'm assuming are related to outsourced American jobs, but this happened as a consequence of American domestic policies encouraging it as a way of driving up profits. Blaming South Korea for benefiting makes no sense.
3. Are we now just equating South Korea with Samsung? If that is the case, then we might as well just equate America with Wal-Mart, a company that has plenty of well known dirty practices.
I think the $1.05 billion win was deserved (perhaps excessive, but I'm willing to give the US court system the benefit of the doubt in that that number roughly portrays Apple's losses as a consequence of Samsung's actions), but in adding the S3 and Galaxy Note Tab, they're over-extending. This case is far from over, as appeals are still on the way and in the upper courts from here on out, juries are not used. The original Galaxy S and S2 variants are very noticeably similar to Apple's designs, both inside and out, but the S3 and Galaxy Note Tab are a whole different beast. I sincerely hope that Apple's lawyers actually have a well thought out plan, and not just acting on hubris derived from winning case after case.