Google cites quote from Steve Jobs biography in attempt to win iPhone import ban

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 47
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,976member
    mstone wrote: »
    The getaway driver didn't rob the bank but they are not without complicity. If Apple was aware of the patent, they shouldn't have used it without permission.

    Even if unaware they could be guilty, just ask the kid in Florida that's serving 25 to life for lending his car to a friend who then drove it to go kill someone.
  • Reply 22 of 47
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,976member
    ascii wrote: »
    I think Steve was right, it is non-obvious. If the original patent was too indefinite and fails for some legal reason, that's fine. But it shouldn't fail the test of non-obviousness. Apple should have to pay some (reasonable) royalty or come up with an alternative solution.

    And I imagine alternatives are possible today that weren't back when the original iPhone came out. For example there is a gyro in there now which may be able to detect device movement upwards towards the ear.

    They might have to do both, there's millions of possibly offending devices out there that they'd be on the hook for.
  • Reply 23 of 47
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Ge
    mstone wrote: »
    What is wrong with targeted ads? If I'm a computer engineer, why would I want to receive ads about every other career? If you own a business that targets computer engineers why would you want to send useless advertisements to soccer moms, farmers and TV personalities. That is why they call them targeted ads, they are likely to appeal to the recipient. And BTW I thought Apple has discontinued support for UDID.

    Because 9 out of 10 times the ads aren't correct, and they pigeonhole you. For instance, I am an attorney. Most of my ads from Google try to sell me on LSAT prep courses to go to law school. Further. I practice Bankruptcy. A lot of the ads are geared towards sending me to various financial help centers.

    So I rarely actually get interesting or relevant ads. Moreover I could care less what a company wants to sell me.
  • Reply 24 of 47
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TBell View Post



    Ge

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post



    What is wrong with targeted ads? If I'm a computer engineer, why would I want to receive ads about every other career? If you own a business that targets computer engineers why would you want to send useless advertisements to soccer moms, farmers and TV personalities. That is why they call them targeted ads, they are likely to appeal to the recipient. And BTW I thought Apple has discontinued support for UDID.




    Because 9 out of 10 times the ads aren't correct, and they pigeonhole you. For instance, I am an attorney. Most of my ads from Google try to sell me on LSAT prep courses to go to law school. Further. I practice Bankruptcy. A lot of the ads are geared towards sending me to various financial help centers.



    So I rarely actually get interesting ads.


    I think that if they had some paying advertiser that was more closely related to your area of expertise they would easily be able to deliver it. They just don't have one that better matches your profile, so you see the closest topic they have under advertiser contract. I see the same thing in my business but I am also in a really narrow niche market segment that typical Google advertisers are not targeting. I am in medical related computer programming but I get tons of advertising targeted at medical doctors while on my iPad since I can't block ads like on my Mac. Perhaps they think I will refer my associates to the advertiser.

  • Reply 25 of 47
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    They might have to do both, there's millions of possibly offending devices out there that they'd be on the hook for.


    If a software update could be written that disables the infrared sensor and uses the gyro instead, it could be pushed out to many of those millions of devices, but yes there'd likely still be a significant number left.

  • Reply 26 of 47
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ascii View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    They might have to do both, there's millions of possibly offending devices out there that they'd be on the hook for.


    If a software update could be written that disables the infrared sensor and uses the gyro instead, it could be pushed out to many of those millions of devices, but yes there'd likely still be a significant number left.



    That is assuming there is some infringement proved, Also in the most unlikely event that ITC bans iPhone would only affect new imports of the device which is highly unlikely and probably would take years to impose with all the legal appeals etc. As far as retroactively disabling the IR sensor, that is just not going to happen as it would violate consumer rights. Disallowing it going forward in new models, maybe. A a similar situation did occur in Europe regarding push email, although that was a software remote services issue not a hardware issue.

  • Reply 27 of 47
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,976member
    ascii wrote: »
    If a software update could be written that disables the infrared sensor and uses the gyro instead, it could be pushed out to many of those millions of devices, but yes there'd likely still be a significant number left.

    Yes but if found in violation it wouldn't change the fact that all those devices infringed. They would impose a fine for previous devices, and more likely a licensing fee versus a all out ban, but as mstone points out it's all assuming that there's infringement proven.
  • Reply 28 of 47
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 888member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Best solution for you is to delete all your cookies and never visit Google again. It is probably impossible to delete your account but it should greatly reduce any tracking that Google does on you. But I'm not sure you can delete an Apple ID either.


     


    By comparison Apple sends me all kinds of targeted emails about the Apple Store, and especially iTunes content. I have yet to receive any such promotional emails from Google. I white list both companies. I don't know why you think Apple isn't tracking you, your purchases and your devices. They know as much or more about you than Google and they also have no reservations about sending you targeted ads by email. I know you receive those same emails from Apple but because of your admiration for the company you don't consider it spam but it technically IS targeted advertising even though you don't want to admit it.



    I actually signed up for an Apple service so I get emails about their content and iTunes.  Search for anything on Google or if you use Gmail or Google voice they transcribe and search your data for keywords to determine who to sell you to.  Do a Google search about something your have never been contacted about before, before the that day or the next is over you will start seeing emails from some related company.  Most people never realize the connection.

  • Reply 29 of 47
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by genovelle View Post




    Quote:

    I actually signed up for an Apple service so I get emails about their content and iTunes.  Search for anything on Google or if you use Gmail or Google voice they transcribe and search your data for keywords to determine who to sell you to.  Do a Google search about something your have never been contacted about before, before the that day or the next is over you will start seeing emails from some related company.  Most people never realize the connection.




    I never receive spam because I have a filtering service. If some affiliate company sends me email and it has spammy content, I never see it.

  • Reply 30 of 47
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TBell View Post



    So I rarely actually get interesting or relevant ads. Moreover I could care less what a company wants to sell me.


     


    You can go modify your profile, like I've done a few times, to get better ads.


     


    Sign into your https://www.google.com/dashboard/  and you can see and edit all your searches and other settings and info.


     


    Then open a window to  http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/  and you can see and edit the profile they use for serving up ads to you, and even opt out of personalized ads altogether.


     


    For example, when I just went to my ad preferences a second ago, I found that Google thought I was interested watches, I presume from searching about smartwatches.   So I deleted that entry.  Easy peasy.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    That is assuming there is some infringement proved, Also in the most unlikely event that ITC bans iPhone would only affect new imports of the device which is highly unlikely and probably would take years to impose with all the legal appeals etc. 




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post



    Yes but if found in violation it wouldn't change the fact that all those devices infringed. They would impose a fine for previous devices, and more likely a licensing fee versus a all out ban, but as mstone points out it's all assuming that there's infringement proven.


     


    Again, folks, this is the ITC, not a regular court.  They're a government agency tasked with protecting American products inside the US.  They can't levy licensing fees.  Their sole power and purpose, is to ban infringing imports, with almost no way to appeal their decisions.


     


    That's why patent holders often go to the ITC right away to stop imports.  Decisions are usually fairly quick and the ITC has shown a willingness to impose injunctions.  It is, after all, their reason to exist.

  • Reply 31 of 47
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Each case is evaluated on its own merits. The judge has to consider a large number of factors, especially in light of the hearsay rule and its 30 or so exceptions.

    Thank you sir; informative post. Also good to read that there are exceptions to the hearsay rule.
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    One judge can't rule for all other cases. I don't think it matters why the screen gets turned off just that it does. As far as bans go I doubt they'll get it, I've never been in favor of banning something altogether because there's a small part within it that violates a patent.

    Good points. I do think however that a patent ought to outlined on how and why it's constructed the way it is, and for what purpose. I therefore think it would be better if the patent would state why the screen turns of because of the IR sensor. Is it to save power because the person listening to the phone isn't watching the screen or is it to do that, including accidental screen touches?
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Even if unaware they could be guilty, just ask the kid in Florida that's serving 25 to life for lending his car to a friend who then drove it to go kill someone.

    Really? Gees, what is the world coming to? Not only the murder, but the conviction on the other kid as well.
    tbell wrote: »
    For instance, I am an attorney. Most of my ads from Google try to sell me on LSAT prep courses to go to law school. Further. I practice Bankruptcy. A lot of the ads are geared towards sending me to various financial help centers.

    So I rarely actually get interesting or relevant ads. Moreover I could care less what a company wants to sell me.

    That just goes to show how incredibly stupid Google is. They merely point advertisements to someone who searched for something, but totally ignoring, not trying to find out, not configuring a smarter ad-related setup, on why the person was searching for something. I'm not saying I have the answer on how to configure such a setup, but the stupidity of the current tech shines through.

    Their search engine is exactly as stupid as their advertisement tech. PageRank was configured merely by the amount of links to a site. That might've seen as something logical to do, but it really just shows how simple the minds of the founders are. Really just hobby kids, loving math and large numbers. Hence the name. Content? Substance? I don't think so.
    kdarling wrote: »
    You can go modify your profile, like I've done a few times, to get better ads.

    Thanks for that info. Not that I want ads (I'm blocking it anyway), but informative for those who do, nonetheless.

    Bit of an eye-opener for some; your personal information is indeed being shared by Google to advertisers. I presume money is being exchanged here:

    "Advertising keeps Google and many of the websites and services you use free of charge. We work hard to make sure that ads are safe, unobtrusive and as relevant as possible. For example, you won’t see pop-up ads on Google and we terminate the accounts of hundreds of thousands of publishers and advertisers that violate our policies each year – including ads containing malware, ads for counterfeit goods or those that attempt to misuse your personal information."

    OT: why are your posts filled with html tags? Anyway to 'stop doing that', should you (even) be aware? It's annoying to clean up. Thanks.
  • Reply 32 of 47
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



    If one judge denies quotes from the bio, shouldn't that be denied on all cases against Apple? Or can one judge do one thing and another judge do another?



     


    As I keep pointing out, the ITC is not a Federal Court, and is not subject to normal hearsay rules.  Here's a link to an ITC blog entry on the topic:


     



     


    "This is very different from district court, where judges are bound by the strict requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence.  In district court, hearsay must qualify under one of the enumerated exceptions if it is to be admitted.  In the ITC, in contrast, ALJs have wide discretion in determining whether or not to admit hearsay evidence."


     


    "In certain circumstances, ALJs will cite one of the hearsay exceptions from the Federal Rules of Evidence in order to justify their decision to admit a particular piece of evidence, but this is not necessary.  In fact, ALJs will often issue ground rules specifically stating that hearsay is admissible."


     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



    That just goes to show how incredibly stupid Google is. They merely point advertisements to someone who searched for something, but totally ignoring, not trying to find out, not configuring a smarter ad-related setup, on why the person was searching for something. I'm not saying I have the answer on how to configure such a setup, but the stupidity of the current tech shines through.


     


    Yep, it's nowhere near as sophisticated or personal, or even as effective, as people think. 


     


    Moreover, anyone can sign up for advertising via Google, and see for themselves what info is or is not available.  I've done so.   Here's a YouTube intro video about it.


     


    Basically all you can do is set up your ad, then check off a list of things about the types of people you want to see your ads.  You can narrow it down with search keywords, site placement preferences, demographics, locations, interests, devices, schedule, etc.  But of course you never see who those people are, unless they click on your ad and fill out a form to tell you.


     


    Quote:


    Bit of an eye-opener for some; your personal information is indeed being shared by Google to advertisers. I presume money is being exchanged here:



     


    No sir.  It's pretty clear that they're talking misuse of personal information that the advertiser themselves have collected.


     


    Quote:


    OT: why are your posts filled with html tags? Anyway to 'stop doing that', should you (even) be aware? It's annoying to clean up. Thanks.



     


    I have no idea.  I'm using the regular edit, and I see nothing.   I'll check into it.  Thanks!

  • Reply 33 of 47
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post




    Here's a link to an ITC blog entry on the topic:


     



     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



    That just goes to show how incredibly stupid Google is. They merely point advertisements to someone who searched for something, but totally ignoring, not trying to find out, not configuring a smarter ad-related setup, on why the person was searching for something. I'm not saying I have the answer on how to configure such a setup, but the stupidity of the current tech shines through.


     


    Yep, it's nowhere near as sophisticated or personal, or even as effective, as people think. 


     


    Moreover, anyone can sign up for advertising via Google, and see for themselves what info is or is not available.  I've done so.   Here's a YouTube intro video about it.


     


    Basically all you can do is set up your ad, then check off a list of things about the types of people you want to see your ads.  You can narrow it down with search keywords, site placement preferences, demographics, locations, interests, devices, schedule, etc.  But of course you never see who those people are, unless they click on your ad and fill out a form to tell you.


     


    Quote:


    Bit of an eye-opener for some; your personal information is indeed being shared by Google to advertisers. I presume money is being exchanged here:



     


    No sir.  It's pretty clear that they're talking misuse of personal information that the advertiser themselves have collected.


     


    Quote:


    OT: why are your posts filled with html tags? Anyway to 'stop doing that', should you (even) be aware? It's annoying to clean up. Thanks.



     


    I have no idea.  I'm using the regular edit, and I see nothing.   I'll check into it.  Thanks!



    - Thanks for the ITC info, and link.


     


    - Pretty basic stuff, this GoogleAds thing. They were actually pretty smart by setting it up so simple; only ought to have taken them one hard 'n good thinking and setting up, then just have the money roll in. Funny thing is, if I see the paid advertisements on the right, I simply copy/paste the URL in order to save the advertiser from a Google fee.


     


    - are they talking about misuse by the advertiser? I didn't read it as such.


     


    - I was able to opt out of customized ads, and they even have a plugin. Just not for Safari


     


    - I'm using the RT Editor now, but can't find a way to post right beneath your tekst, so had to put everything at the bottom. Oh well, back to plain text, nee, BBcode editor.


     


    - have a great weekend

  • Reply 34 of 47
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    philboogie wrote: »
    - I'm using the RT Editor now, but can't find a way to post right beneath your tekst, so had to put everything at the bottom. Oh well, back to plain text, nee, BBcode editor.

    Yeah, it's the HMTL editor instead of the BBCode editor. I wish AI would turn that off.

    I've mentioned it to KDarling before but seems to relish in the chaos. If you have to reply to their comments in segments the workaround is to simply delete their post then do a copy/paste of their pre-posted comment. This will get you the plan text without all the HTML Span and Font tags.

    I also use TextExpander so I can add the closed quote and open quote by pressing a couple keys on the keyboard. This can save plenty of time in your replies.
  • Reply 35 of 47
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    I remember you writing this to him. Also your mention of TextExpander, I'll give that a try as well since that sounds like a time saver. Tnx
  • Reply 36 of 47
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Yeah, it's the HMTL editor instead of the BBCode editor. I wish AI would turn that off.



    I've mentioned it to KDarling before but seems to relish in the chaos. If you have to reply to their comments in segments the workaround is to simply delete their post then do a copy/paste of their pre-posted comment. This will get you the plan text without all the HTML Span and Font tags.


     


    "Relish in the chaos" ??  What a dumb thing to say.  Until now, you were the only one to mention seeing HTML, so I figured it must've been a one-time glitch in your reader.


     


    My posts look totally normal to me, and I would've thought, to everyone else... since I've read them using multiple devices with OSes and browsers of all types.   What are you reading the site with?   A non-HTML capable app?  And are my posts the only ones with HTML in them?  That'd be weird!


     


    Anyway, I'll be happy to change to another online forum editor.  Suggestions?  Thanks!   PS.  Here's a screenshot of this post:


     


     


  • Reply 37 of 47
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    No suggestions from me, other than just use BBcode editor with the site preferences. Tnx
  • Reply 38 of 47
    evilutionevilution Posts: 1,349member


    Clearly the original sensor in the Motorola phone didn't stop the ear touching the screen and activating things it shouldn't because the phone in the patent has buttons. You're gonna have to be pretty ham fisted to activate physical buttons with your ear. My guess is that it used the sensor to dim the screen or some such.

  • Reply 39 of 47
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

    You're gonna have to be pretty ham fisted to activate physical buttons with your ear.




    Ham-eared, you mean?

  • Reply 40 of 47
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member
    philboogie wrote: »
    No suggestions from me, other than just use BBcode editor with the site preferences. Tnx

    Thanks! I tried that, now _I_ see HTML tags everywhere while editing. I think I'll go back to the original editor.

    So is this only happening in the editor? If so, then why are you using BBEditor instead of the HTML native one? Just curious. Appreciate the understanding.

    evilution wrote: »
    Clearly the original sensor in the Motorola phone didn't stop the ear touching the screen and activating things it shouldn't because the phone in the patent has buttons. You're gonna have to be pretty ham fisted to activate physical buttons with your ear. My guess is that it used the sensor to dim the screen or some such.

    Plenty of phones had both buttons and touchscreens, and this patent is for the latter input device. As it says in its primary claim:

    "a sensor coupled to the user interface, the sensor to disable communication of the input signal to the processing section when the portable communication device is positioned in close proximity to a user, thereby, preventing inadvertent actuation of the touch sensitive input device. "

    The background description goes on to specifically talk about the situation where a touchscreen or touchpad is involved.

    However, as I mentioned far above, the patent is for the IR sensor PHYSICALLY interrupting the touch signal.

    I would bet almost anything that Apple gets the IR signal on a status line, and interrupts the touches in software instead.

    If so, that should not be an infringement.
Sign In or Register to comment.