davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 187
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,771
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,202
Reactions
-
Apple beats patent troll, wins suit over Secure Enclave tech
gatorguy said:
Then the patents were not simply "ideas" were they, according to your own research? You are correct, you can't patent mere ideas.davidw said:gatorguy said:
Every tech does the same thing, asking for patents on stuff they have no plans of making, including Apple.rob53 said:"All four deal with methods of improving user security" Nothing ever created for sale so was it ever really a patentable product? It was simply an idea that never was used in a product so why should something like this even be patentable?Actually, the thing that should had made it not patentable, was that they were just "ideas". Ideas are not patentable
All you saying that the US Patent Office had never been wrong when they issued a patent?Apple have on many occasions invalidated patents, that should not have been patented. Apple invalidated 15 patents by Masimo alone. But so far, lost a suit based on 2 patents they couldn't invalidate.>The Patent Trial and Appeal Board evaluated 17 Masimo patents, invalidating 15, a decision that Masimo is now contesting.<Just because they got patents doesn't mean that they should had.Even Google have invalidated patents that they felt should not had been patented in the first place.Thinking that because the US Patent Office issued a patent, it must be something that was patentable, would be like thinking that because Google did it, it couldn't have been evil.We all know that both of those concepts are wrong.
-
Apple beats patent troll, wins suit over Secure Enclave tech
gatorguy said:
Every tech does the same thing, asking for patents on stuff they have no plans of making, including Apple.rob53 said:"All four deal with methods of improving user security" Nothing ever created for sale so was it ever really a patentable product? It was simply an idea that never was used in a product so why should something like this even be patentable?Actually, the thing that should had made it not patentable, was that they were just "ideas". Not that there were no plans of making the product. Ideas are not patentable (under US patent laws). An actual working model based on an idea is patentable. Even if the "working model" is not an actual product but a detailed blueprint of how to build a working product.Otherwise Gene Roddenberry (estate) would already own the patents for devices that are based on the "Transporter", Warp Drive, Tricorder, Phaser, Cloaking Device, Tractor Beam, Dilithium Crystal and Apple iPad would be infringing upon his idea of a computer in tablet form. Not to mention "Siri". Plus Motorola StarTac flip phone would had infringed on the Roddenberry idea of a "communicator".
-
Apple beats patent troll, wins suit over Secure Enclave tech
MplsP said:Ok, how about a better description of what was patented and how Apple allegedly violated the patents? Also what did the original company do and why is Identity Security LLC considered a patent troll?
I love seeing patent trolls lose but from reading the article I can’t tell it they’re really a patent troll or if they’re a small company from whom Apple actually stole IP.
If you had read the first sentence of the article, you should know that it wouldn't had matter if the plaintiff was a"patent troll" or a small company, the jury found that Apple did not infringe upon the patents. I don't know how you could come to any sort of conclusion that Apple might had ...... "actually stole IP". Unless you're just trolling.
-
RCS-enhanced iMessage in iOS 18 still has security issues when adding Android users
gatorguy said:
Nope. It's not Google's RCS, it's GSMA's RCS. Google's works just fine on the Android side with the add-ons for better integration and encryption, and Apple isn't using Google's version.danox said:
So it’s up to Apple to make Google crap work cause if they don’t, they’re being hurtful and uncompetitive to the competition? Will the EU run interference for AAA games doubtful.
I don't think Apple particularly cares how well their flavor works, or if it's ultimately secure, as long as the Chinese are placated. I suspect Apple's considers it good enough as is.But you stated that Apple was implementing GSMA RCS. So it's not Apple own flavor of RCS. If it's not secure, then it's up to the GSMA to make their RCS more secure (with maybe help form Apple), not Apple. Hey, the last thing anyone want to have is a GSMA version of RCS, the Google version and an Apple version. If the government steps in, (whether the US or EU) and mandate that everyone must use the RCS version that they approve, then that's the end for RCS. No one is going to use or trust the RCS version that the government mandate must be used.And in China, there is no E2EE with RCS. In China, nearly all messaging services are not allowed to have E2EE. But yet Apple own iMessage in China have E2EE. But you can count on China not allowing Apple to implement any version of RCS with E2EE, even if GSMA manage to implement E2EE on their version of RCS. Apple must adopt the RCS that is provided by the telecoms in China.Even if iMessage must use China servers, China government can not see the content of the iMessage while in transit. Which is what E2EE is. However, since the China government control the top 3 telecoms in China (which accounts for over 95% of the mobile users), they are able to install spyware on all their citizens mobile phones. Therefore, China government do not need to see the contents of any messages sent, while in transit. The installed spyware can see the message before it's sent or after it's receive, on their customers mobile phones.It's like the spyware China installs on tourists Android phones when they enter the country (at certain crossings). Only its citizens can not uninstall it.BTW- China did not force Apple to adopt RCS with iMessage. China requires all mobile devices to be able to process RCS messaging. Apple could have just let the China telecoms install their own RCS app, to satisfy the regulation. But like Apple with the telecoms SMS, Apple chose to implement RCS using iMessage. Plus it would be better for the non-China citizens that are visiting China, to have RCS messaging, without having to install a third party app.
-
EU advocacy group sues Apple because other streaming music services hiked prices
nubus said:
US just fined Visa and MasterCard $30 bn for charging shops too much and causing price increases. A judge found $30 bn wasn't enough. The case of App Store is similar and could very well go to courts in the US. US, EU, and most of the world have antitrust regulation in place. EU under Vestager was known for being all open markets to the point where unions gave her a statue of a raised middle finger (a statue she kept on display at her office). The next 5 years are likely to be protectionism just as we have seen from US. But this case... it could happen in US and would give us more competition and better pricing.chasm said:The European Commission works very hard at making Europe really unattractive to non-EU businesses. Apple is no angel, but the obvious bias in favour of Spotify is kind of ridiculous, but luckily they don't have a leg to stand on if this case goes to court, so my prediction will be that Apple will eventually prevail in this particular case.That was not a fine, that was a settlement in a lawsuit that's been going on for over 10 years now. If Visa and MasterCard didn't offer this $30B to settle the case, the lawsuit could very well go on for another 10 years. The US government haven't found Visa and MasterCard guilty of anything yet.
