Slashdot Mirror
Apple Blocks Sale of Galaxy Tab 10.1 In Australia
lukehopewell1 writes "Apple has obtained an injunction from an Australian court effectively blocking the sale of the new Android Honeycomb-powered Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1v. Apple Australia claims that the unit infringes on 10 of the Cupertino, California-based company's patents including the slide to unlock functionality as well as the edge-bounce feature. Samsung will provide Apple Australia with three units for study in coming weeks to ascertain whether or not the Korean gadget maker did in fact infringe on Apple's patented intellectual property."
Old is new once again!
I am fully confident that this thread will demonstrate the utmost civility of Slashdot users.
KDE3 Kopete and Konqueror had edge bounce (removed from KDE4 due to ugly code). Apple now infridge 9 patents.
We will play a game, everybody invalidate one patent until they run out.
Guess these new Adroid tablets may be worth taking a look at if they have Apple this scared. Course they could just be a bunch of jerks... hard to tell these days.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
It's blocked UNTIL Apple can prove they infringed? Australia, crushing due process harder than the U.S. since 1994.
Why does it have to be one or the other? EIther way the Galaxy Tab does look pretty cool, then again I said I was going to wait for the Asus "Slider" tablet.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
Thanks for the review Apple!
Yeah thanks Apple, and here's a brick for that walled garden. I bet you know just where to stick it, but so that you don't infringe on any patents, be sure to stick it SIDEWAYS.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I agree. It sounds like it must be good enough to have Apple scared.
What the hell? If you get sued you have to send three review units to your competitor for analysis?
Uhh... can I get three Galaxy Tabs if I sue Samsung too?
You're holding it wrong.
If you can't do better then sue better.
Rocket Surgeon.
Certainly not innovative. However ipad is a decent product, as evidenced by the fact that none of the competing tablets seem to give users as good an experience. The iphone is good too; it took over two years before someone had made a decent competing smartphone. Google owns this market now, (completely justified, android is an awesome phone OS). I doubt android would be as good as it is now if it wasn't for the fact that they needed to reach the bar that had been raised by the iphone.
Seriously, if "Slide to Lock" deserves a patent, someone in the USPTO should be hit over the head with a hammer. Repeatedly.
Apple's legal counsel Christian Dimitriadis
Said the Ipad 2 was "fooly sikh" and that Apple "wants if fuckin money fuckin".
Meanwhile
Samsung's legal counsel Neil Murray
Said that Apple was being a "wuss and should harden up" and that their counsel was a "flamin galah" stating that this case was "a few tinny's short of a six pack". He also commented elected to inform apple on "where to stuff ya bloody law suit".
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Oh, come on.
Apple the corporate entity is a marketing monster, yes, and they are also a totally anti-competitive, control-freaks as well.
But to say they haven't made a decent product (or as one reply to you said "certainly not innovative") is absurd. They completely redefined the concepts of smartphones and tablet computers, and all of their competitors are basically scrambling to parrot their basic design innovations.
Do I agree with their marketing tactics, locked down platform, or stifling app store policies? No. But that doesn't mean I can't give them credit for creating a brilliant example of engineering and human interface design.
I'm presuming that the patents in question were granted within the United States of America.
A few questions are floating around my head: * How exactly does United States patent law apply to a Korean company selling products within Australia?
The answer.
* Why is this not being addressed against Samsung within the United States where the patent was presumably granted?
It is. But with the Aussie dollar on the rise, Australia started to become an interesting market, so why not in Australia as well?
* Is this tied to the relatively recent free trade agreements between Australia and the United States? Is Korea not a partner?
Re. US - the agreement is not THAT recent (2004). Recent is only Australia as a patent battle ground.
Re. Korea: nope, in negotiation only – long after the FTA with US has been signed.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Get your grammar right before advertising your stuff (which you should not do) over here.
I'm sure Apple and Samsung and all those folks are trying to file patents wherever their products are likely to show up. I'm sure that, if a judge approved the injunction, it's not just based on a US-granted patent; it'd have to be either a local patent, or a non-local patent in combination with some treaty which made it reasonable for the judge to bring down the gavel.
I presume that this is more rhetorical curiosity than real curiosity, but I'll go ahead and answer question #2 as well: they are pursuing it in the US as well. There simply hasn't been an injunction to my knowledge. Why? Well, if only PJ would follow this stuff, we'd actually understand it instead of throwing out the first emotional response that comes to mind.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Yeah, that's Apple being scared. It's definitely not your wishful thinking projecting emotions onto a business decision.
They're trying to block the entry of a competitor via the legal system as opposed to competing with them once the product is released.
That is not a business decision, that's an admission they cannot compete.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Samsung didn't copy Apple any more than Apple copied a whole bunch of previous products. Samsung has definitely improved on what Apple has done and that is why Apple is feeling threatened.
I have both an iPhone4 and a Galaxy S. The Galaxy S running Android 2.3.4, which is what the SGS II ships with, looks and feels very different to the iPhone. It also provides a much more useful tool than the iPhone in that you can send files over bluetooth, use it as a mass storage device without needing iTunes, watch flash videos, etc etc. Apple knows this and they are scared.
I don't therefore I'm not.
Can't Samsung use its political connections to block iPad in the whole of East of Asia?
Samsung didn't copy Apple any more than Apple copied a whole bunch of previous products. Samsung has definitely improved on what Apple has done and that is why Apple is feeling threatened. I'm not sure I agree.
The CB App. What's your 20?
If you can "steal" the UI just by looking at it, what valuable information do the patents hold?
And if the patents don't hold valuable information, how do they "promote the progress of
science and useful arts"?
This looks like the patent here Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image .
It's already in the process of being rejected due to a re-examination, "Claim 1 is not novel (and lack an inventive step) in light of the prior art document"
Although it doesn't help they have 21months before it will lapse due to the rejection.
I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
Yeah, talk about feeding the beast.
Galaxy Tab is sooo good even Apple's tried to stop its release!
Copying doesn't preclude improving upon, so that isn't what Samsung is accused of. Plus the two patents mentioned are for trivial UX features that are hardly ground breaking innovation in and of themselves.
Part of the reason that people are venting at Apple in this case is because yet again we see the absurdity of the patent and legal systems ably demonstrated by what is a pretty lame lawsuit (we think this product may infringe our patents, so ban all imports and give us full access so we can decide if this is actually the case or not - i.e. they're not even saying that it definitely infringes). I mean seriously, how on earth is sliding your finger across the screen to unlock the device something so amazingly innovative that Apple should be able to patent it?!
Another big part of the reason is that instead of competing by producing a better product and letting the market decide, Apple are increasingly hiding behind their lawyers. Their response to Android in general has been to sue rather than to find a better way to compete in the open market place. They could produce better devices, a wider range of devices, they could release the OS and allow other manufacturers to build iDevices, they could choose to specialise in various niches, they could try and revolutionise another market sector, etc. They have chosen to do absolutely none of those things, despite the end consumer benefitting from any and all of them, instead releasing relatively minor incremental updates to the same products and attempting to use the legal system to wipe out the competition.
The average consumer never benefits when a single manufacturer focussed on the premium end of the market is given free reign of entire classes of device. As a consumer, even an Apple fanboi (if you are one), you should be cheering on the competition knowing that it means more people will find the ideal device for them and that the competition will push all the manufacturers to keep improving their products at a far faster rate than if one company maintains a monopoly.
You're so going to be modded down by the small-penised hipsters who LOVE their itunes.
Yes, patents bad, boo hoo. When you're a small independent startup, sure, let's talk about how crappy patents are. When you're a billion dollar a year mega corporation, pay the damn licensing fees.
I fear you misunderstand the patent system. There generally aren't licensing fees, and if there are then they're guaranteed to be exorbitant as IP owners can charge what they wish. If you can get the patent granted, than you can do whatever you wish with both the patent subject and the people unlucky enough to have implemented it. Read up about submarine patents and you'll understand what I mean.
"The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
Cheap Android tablets: so versatile. (Note: don't click if you can't take a joke.)
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Someone must have the "Wipe to Clean" patent on cleaning your butt. That's only reason I can explain the abundance of crap patents like "Slide to Unlock." I'll be submitting my patent for "Pour into Glass" for beverages; I'm sure to make a killing.
That is not a business decision, that's an admission they cannot compete.
Because Sumsung's Android gear has been selling so well they've decided to no longer report the numbers, to ...um... not make anyone jealous. You can see why Apple might be shaking in their boots.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
is the reason I do not own a Mac. It is the reason I do not own an iPod or an iPad or an iPhone. And am unlikely to ever do so.
The patent system may be broken, but it is not the patent system that is killing technology, it is Apple. If they can't make all the money from it, then no-one can. I believe that is Mr Jobs' philosophy.
Well, Mr Jobs, you can stick your technology where the sun don't shine.
That is not a business decision, that's an admission they cannot compete.
Because Sumsung's Android gear has been selling so well they've decided to no longer report the numbers, to ...um... not make anyone jealous. You can see why Apple might be shaking in their boots.
Could you have found a more biased site. They readily admit they are paid by Apple. Besides that proves nothing. If Apple isn't scared, why are they trying to get the courts to prevent Samsung from selling a much demanded competing product. Sorry if this shatters your fanboyish delusions.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Who makes the screens in the iPad? Who is begging who to please supply them with more screens?
I think Apple is scared, that it might not be getting the next generation of screens if Samsung has need for it themselves. If Samsung can make more money selling tablets then selling screens, Apple is screwed because Samsung is currently in the lead in the screen market especially oled.
Also, this isn't just about tablets, iPhone sales are lower then Android sales and Samsung sells a lot of Android phones.
Apple is trying to get rid of the competition. Same as MS did with IE and we all know how that worked out for browser users. Apple without competition would be as boring in its line-up as MS.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
which brings up an interesting point. What happens if a patent should be invalid, but Australia is forced to enforce it due to treaty obligations. I assume that an Australian judge can neither invalidate a US patent nor abrogate Australia's treaty obligations.
I love it how ACs come in here and try to re-write history.
oh well a registered account, do you feel special? your link ignores everything prior to 2007 but just so you know the world did exist before the iphone.
were apple first with a touchscreen phone? No.
were apple first with a grid of icons on a touchscreen phone? No.
were apple first with apps on a touchscreen phone? No.
I can see you have difficulty believing that such things existed before 2007 and that these 'magical' things could not have been invented by anyone but apple, but samsung didn't 'steal' any ideas any more than apple 'stole' those ideas, you can't have it both ways.
I like apple, and i like most of their products, but i hate douchebags who act as if apple are the inventors of everything its ok when apple takes ideas from others but not when others take ideas from apple.
Re-read what you've written: improved on what Apple has done. It's the "what Apple has done" bit that may indicate patent infringement. Rightly or wrongly, patents are used by companies to protect their revenue-making ability. You have to be totally blind to not see the Galaxy S as (at least in part) a copy of Apple's case design and GUI.
They've had a massive rise in profitability that anyone who isn't stuck in a cave can't have missed. However, what some people don't seem to realize is it has almost entirely been in a new market, consumer electronics, not their computer division. Their computer sales have gone up, but not near to the levels of their consumer electronics and only after the CE products made them a name.
So if they want to keep that profitability, and all companies want that, they have to keep that market.
For a time, no problem. It started with the iPod which became a fashion accessory. People didn't get MP3 players, they got iPods. It was what was cool to have and nobody could compete because nobody else could make an iPod. Well that market is pretty saturated these days. People don't buy new MP3 players all the time, and the iPod fashion has faded a bit (though it is still strong). So while it makes them money, it doesn't make them money like it used to.
Enter the iPhone and now iPad. The iPhone did great because it captured a new part of the smartphone market: casual users. Other smartphones were very business oriented, the iPhone was for consumers who wanted a toy. The iPad of course went in to a new market entirely, since tablets like it really aren't competition for full out tablet PCs.
All is well and Apple makes billions... However Android is a real threat to that. It has become extremely good and has been eating away at the iPhone market (and everyone else's). The tablet market was safe, but now it is entering there. It has a ways to go but is getting better at a rapid pace, Google improves it very quickly.
Apple is seeing their consumer electronics markets evaporate, turn in to regular commodity markets where you have to compete on price which Apple has never done well. This won't kill Apple, but it could seriously shrink them and companies view that as just as bad.
So they have to attack and try and stop it, in any way they can.
I just hope they don't succeed. I don't want a world where only one company can provide certain kinds of technology. Competition is nearly always good for the consumer.
*slide to unlock*
Multiple devices have had this for ages - it's called the 'hold' switch (present on PSPs, old Sony walkmans, etc.)
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Facts are a little shallow today. Look up the Dynabook idea from 1968, published by Xerox PARC as a research project in 1972. That's really the first concept tablet by Alan Kay(pro) who later became an Apple Fellow in 1984. Guess what he had a hand in there? The Apple Newton came out in 1993, as flawed as that was (if the Nokia N800 was a tablet, then so was the Newton).
The Microsoft/HP/Compaq tablet concepts showed up way after that in 2001. They were a joke relative to what we're seeing today - they were the concrete patio tile of portable computing. That form factor never took off as a must-have product with the general public but it did find uses in industrial applications. Ok, so it was just a laptop with a screen that swivels and a stylus to tap on it.
There was no thunderous stampede to make anything like tablets until the iPad.
Most of the stuff on
Between the wholesale theft of the UI
Right. So, how many UI elements has Apple copied from other OSes and projects? Several hundreds? And that is not wrong, but when someone copies from Apple it suddenly becomes wrong?
Personally I feel being able to patent _ideas_ is downright stupid altogether, you should only be able to patent a specific implementation and even then copyright-laws actually do a better job of protecting a specific implementation. Being able to copy good ideas and improve on them is a GOOD thing for all end-users, it's bad only for the company who doesn't want their competitors to be able to enter the same market.
Sorry, but more Android phones are sold than iPhones.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/196035/android_outsells_the_iphone_no_big_surprise.html
"Retail research kingpin the NPD Group is reporting that Android-based phones are now outselling iPhones. Or at least they did last quarter in terms of unit sales in the U.S. according to NPD's study, which found that RIM's BlackBerries held 36 percent of the market, phones running Google's Android had 28 percent, and the iPhone was at 21 percent."
Unfortunately, the standard for prior art on patents is not "It works kinda like that other thing I saw in a different context." - Apple's "innovation" in taking the hold switch concept and implementing it in a touch-based interface is sufficient for it to be granted a patent, for better or worse.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
I think Samsung only has pull in Korea. They both have a lot of money to throw around.
You are wrong, but i wont bother explaining why, just assume by the complicated sentences i put together, that i am smarter then you and shut up
There, i reworded your post a bit.
Honestly, i try to NOT be an asshole online, but whenever i see people trying to win an argument with a post that is essentially null in terms of content, i cant help myself
People, what a bunch of bastards
If you read about the 10.1 tab, the design been released in Australia is different from the US one. The reason apple want version of it is to see if it violates the same claims, which 1/2 of them are about design - ie coped the IPAD etc. Samsung will be happy to do this - because they can get damages from apple if the hold up was without merit.
It might work in China, but for the rest, I believe they have a judiciary system that is a bit autonomous so I guess it's going to be complex.
That said, it's obviously easier for Apple since they were first to market. Samsung can hardly say "they copied us with their new iPad" since Samsung themselves (with Google obviously) cloned the iPhone and the iPad for so long.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
It's quite disgusting really since such software is not patentable in either Australia or Korea.
the iPhone is just an iTouch with a phone glued on to it
Besides being irrelevant to innovation (it's the same company!), the iPhone was released before the iTouch, so it doesn't even make sense.
the iTouch is just a spiffed up Nintendo DS
The DS has a really simplistic single contact resistive screen. It's like saying digital HDTV isn't innovative because B&W CRTs were already invented. Multitouch capacitive screens and the UI design to make them intuitive on a small high res mobile device was what made it innovative.
And Blackberry?? I'm not even going to bother...
And most of this doesn't even consider the software involved. Who cares about hardware innovations if no one has the slightest clue how to make them usable (and fun) for the masses?
Ugh. Personally I'd love to see someone else in the market take the lead in true innovation, I can't stand Apple in many ways. But I'm not so ignorant that I need to deny their obvious talent for HW, SW, and ID.
+1 Funny obligatory.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
I think 'slide switch to unlock portable device, which has been around since portable casserre audio players, and CD players . Just about every 'portable audio device I have had since the '90s has had it. I now have a MP3 player with a touchscreen that has it. Are Apple going to sue (Eclipse/Trio) them too?
BTW I officially gave up on Apple in 1988
(a[art from the actual fruit and beverages made from them, I am still waiting for them to sue Enza )
I'm just saying having influence in China might be enough to ban a product entirely from the country, although the iPad has a bit of exposure. Now, I don't think Samsung has any - or at least not that much.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
FTFY.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
No, part of the reason we see people venting at apple is that they have brand loyalty to android, and they're too dumb to realise their bias ;).
Cash and bribe is how justice and other forms of business work in China.
Apple's "innovation" in taking the hold switch concept and implementing it in a touch-based interface
You mean like Windows Mobile phones have? The lawyers must be looking forward for the next lawsuit on this patent.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
About 250,000 Chinese employees and hundreds of acres of factories. Apple has a few stores, however...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Oh, come on.
Apple the corporate entity is a marketing monster, yes, and they are also a totally anti-competitive, control-freaks as well.
But to say they haven't made a decent product (or as one reply to you said "certainly not innovative") is absurd.
Actually, it's correct. They conceptualize and market, but a lot of the design work is outsourced, and all the production is done via contract. Apple, in fact, doesn't make decent product - because they simply do not make product.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We cry "hey apple, why can't you do better?" because that is exactly what we want. We don't want to see them defeat the competition with a legal department over the fact they both unlock the screen similarly (which in honeycomb isn't slide to the left to unlock its slide in any direction from a certain distance). We want to see them bring a superior product to market, and you should want that too. You don't see the car industry fighting like this instead they embrace competition and race each other, then the technology from the race cars makes its way into our cars. I'm not sure but I don't think any one blocks competitors car imports because they used the same slightly slopping down bonnet, hump in the middle with four doors and a flat boot or the same placement and use of a horn; how hard would cars be drive if they all had to have a unique interface.
Rocket Surgeon.
I love it how ACs come in here and try to re-write history.
It's not just ACs that "rewrite history"; I was using SPB Mobile Shell with widgets and grids of icons on a Samsung 830w back in Feb 2007 - well before the iPhone was released. Worked great, too - configurable, easy access, and even had a slide-out keyboard similar to the Blackberry phones.
As far as I can tell and remember, the iPhone was little more than a pretty feature phone - no apps (I was a regular user of Handango back then, plenty of apps for the WM platform), no Exchange support, no cut-and-paste, no multitasking, little more than what most LG and Samsung and Nokia feature phones offered. And considerably less functionality than the Symbian and Windows Mobile smartphones offered.
But it looked pretty, and Apple is great at marketing...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
..Apple brings on litigation.. WTF?
Can't do better?
I remember, when I first started posting on Slashdot (using a different account with a late 90's UID) when people would howl in rage at Microsoft saying that Apple was justified with their early 90's Look and Feel lawsuit. That Microsoft had ripped off Apple and deserved to be punished. It seemed as thought the mind of the consensus thought Apple was the good guy for litigating the look and feel lawsuit and MSFT was the bad guy. Spin forward almost 15 years and suddenly Apple is the bad guy for doing exactly what it did to Microsoft. What I'm interested to know is - have opinions revised themselves so that the original Apple lawsuit is considered a bad overreach (remember that Apple only lost on a licensing technicality) - or is this another "when it's done to Microsoft it's good/when it's done to Android it's bad" case of Slashdot cognitive dissonance?
Windows mobile phones don't have slide to unlock. S2U2 mimics the iOS lock screen. In fact, there's an entire suite of apps to make WinMo look like iOS.
I was confused briefly because when I went to go google "Slide to unlock Windows Mobile" I didn't actually find anything that was native to Windows Mobile.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Who makes the screens in the iPad? Who is begging who to please supply them with more screens?
Multiple sources according to CNET : "Industry online paper DigiTimes is also reporting that Chimei Innolux will also help in producing screen replacement units for iPads along with LG Display and Samsung Electronics."
I think Apple is scared, that it might not be getting the next generation of screens if Samsung has need for it themselves. If Samsung can make more money selling tablets then selling screens, Apple is screwed because Samsung is currently in the lead in the screen market especially oled.
Apple doesn't use OLED screens, Samsung so far hasn't proven itself in the tablet market unlike in the smartphone market and even there it can't touch Apple's volume. Doesn't seem so scary to me.
Also, this isn't just about tablets, iPhone sales are lower then Android sales and Samsung sells a lot of Android phones.
Apple is trying to get rid of the competition. Same as MS did with IE and we all know how that worked out for browser users. Apple without competition would be as boring in its line-up as MS.
I'll agree the gloves are definitely off and no punches are being pulled but it's no use blaming the player for the rules of the game. Patent reform is the only thing that will end this once and for all.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
name some.
Research some computer history, like for example Xerox PARC and the Star desktop and work from there. What, you thought Apple has invented ALL UI elements and paradigms? Copying of UI elements has been done for tens of years. And we'd still be in the stone ages of computing if it hadn't been allowed in the beginning, ergo it's a good thing.
Plus, what about the smart case thing?
Samsung got caught. they stole the look and feel of iOS2 and 3.
I never commented on that.
Could you have found a more biased site. They readily admit they are paid by Apple.
Citation needed. If you can provide I'll happily ignore them from now on.
Besides that proves nothing.
If Apple isn't scared, why are they trying to get the courts to prevent Samsung from selling a much demanded competing product.
They are protecting their IP, it's protect it or lose it. I don't like the patent system as it exists but I also know it doesn't pay to try to be a lamb when you are surrounded by wolves.
Sorry if this shatters your fanboyish delusions.
Arguments, not insults please.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
I have a Windows mobile phone. To unlock it I have to press a key then slide a slider on the touch screen. The difference with my wife's Android phone is that she has to press a key then slide anywhere on the screen, not slide a specific slider. Anybody got the wording of the Apple patent?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Alert! Alert! Apple Fan Boy!
The wording is easy enough to find, it's a design patent though. The picture is the most important part, haven't found it yet.
The average android user isn't as loyal as you might think (defiantly not as bias as the average apple user). About 25% of android users would swap to a Kde/Ubuntu phone if it showed up; 25% would be happy if Microsoft got there act into gear (windows 8 on medfield); 10% are contemplating a swap to ios; most users are in it for the latest and fastest hardware; and a good chunk of users don't know much about all this OS business and got it because it was cheap.
Yeah because Apple are saints, Sony is run by clones of Mr Rogers, Microsoft cares more about it's customers than profits and Rupert Murdoch is just misunderstood.
All corporations are corrupt and vile. Some of them are just better at hiding it.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
No, no, no, that's a Troll. A proper Fanboi would go like this: "Apple make fantastic gadgets. They really know how to design the user experience. Samsung are just copycats, one step up from KIRFers."
And an Astroturfer would say, "While I'm a Samsung user, and I love their products, I have to side with Apple on this one. Samsung did, after all, copy the iPad in many ways, and you have to give it to Apple, they're the only real innovators in terms of UI and technology."
My blog
Old is new once again!
Oh, come on. Find me one patent with a claim that says "1. [entirely known method] performed on a computer" or "1. [entirely known method] performed on a mobile computing device." And if you can't point to any claims, but just a title, or just an abstract, or just a line in a specification that describes computing devices, then no, you have not succeeded. There are no patents that have that claim.
Now, there are patents that have dependent claims like that. Example:
1. A method for [entirely new process], comprising [performing entirely new process] on a network.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the network is the Internet."
That's a technique called claim differentiation. Claim 2 is narrower than claim 1, so if claim 2 says "the network is the Internet," then the network in claim 1 must include both the Internet, and other networks like your LAN. But claim 2 also includes that [entirely new process] bit, so it's still not a "[entirely known method] but on the internet" patent. This ends up confusing a lot of people, yourself included.
Apple's "innovation" in taking the hold switch concept and implementing it in a touch-based interface is sufficient for it to be granted a patent, for better or worse.
No it is not.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
...Allows an individual to avoid buying anything (digital or physical) from Apple, and even avoid installing any of their software on any computer. I Hereby grand a Royalty Free, World Wide license to everyone in the world, so that anyone can implement this technology in the course of their day to day lives, and thus save money. And I am totally fair, as I allow and even encourage Apple to import this technology to Australia.
"Whats wrong with developing your own bloody IP? Oh, right, its hard. Copying is easy, right, I get it."
You are infringing on at least 57 patents that cover ignorance. You have no concept of Apple's history do you? Hint: Apple didn't invent the mouse, or graphical interfaces. They copied them. They didn't invent tablets. They didn't invent gesture interfaces (one might argue that Star Trek Next Generation did, because they didn't have the money to put buttons on their computer props).
Besides, have you any idea how many patents every one of Apple's products "infringe" upon?
Do not confuse great execution with original development. Apple is great at execution, but there is little original about what they build.
Touch screens + LCD together, is more of a simulation of real life in 2D.
ie table, with objects that can move and some that cant.
If changed to a traditional GUI context, its just a large wide Slider. If X pos > 90%, window_open();
You cant patent, its LOOK, or its name, or what happends after.
Its just the same as a rotational wheel in walkmans that clicks on/off at level 0 to -1.
Maybe thats why 2.3.5 has a curved angled swipy.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I don't think it was Samsung to create Android. Why isn't Apple suing Google? The bump and slide to unlock is present in all versions.
I don't know about the Slashdot crowd, but I never bought into the "look and feel" argument. I didn't then, and I don't now.
Does it bother you when you buy a shirt that its design is almost surely patterned after the look and feel of current fashion? This is because (unless big fashion and Lawyers can change it) fashion isn't so restricted. And I don't see anyone in the real world that complains that fashion trends propagate too quickly through the market. We shouldn't sue when trends propagate quickly through our computer interfaces for EXACTLY the same reason: Allowing this is best for the CONSUMER.
And there is no constitutional justification for slowing progress to benefit anyone, not even Oprah or Apple (the biggest two sacred relics of the current day)
Did you really intend to fail a reading comprehension test that badly in public? The OP said: "iPhone is the single most sold smartphone *brand*". That was the whole fucking point of his post! Brand, not OS. (And profits, not volume)
A simplistic argument at best. You wouldn't be singing this tune if you had invented the iPhone or iPad, and essentially created two new markets with your unique design and then had tons of companies immediately start their photocopiers and try and blatantly rip you off by offering the same thing. Yes, I'm obviously an Apple fan, I am one of those 90% of satisfied customers. Apple is far from perfect, I do think they need to open up some aspects of their products to more flexibility, but they and they alone created these two markets and only a blind fool would think that these other companies are doing anything more than building off of blatant initial copies of Apple's work.
A much demanded product? Really? Seems you might be suffering from your own brand of fanboyish delusions!
Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Why can't they first attempt a legal block, and if that fails, compete in the marketplace? This way they can "protect" their "IP" while they continue to compete.
Sure, it's a shitty thing to do, but there's no reason they can't do both at the same time. In fact, there's usually pretty good (selfish) reasons to go this way.
Don't like it? Call your local government and request patent reform.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Apple is screwed because Samsung is currently in the lead in the screen market especially oled.
Um I believe Apple is buying LED backlit LCD screens from LG so why would Apple be screwed?
Also, this isn't just about tablets, iPhone sales are lower then Android sales and Samsung sells a lot of Android phones.
Yes Apple sells fewer iPhones than all Android phones. However Apple sells more iPhones than any single manufacturer's Android phones. Also Apple makes more profit than the all the Android phones.
Apple is trying to get rid of the competition. Same as MS did with IE and we all know how that worked out for browser users. Apple without competition would be as boring in its line-up as MS.
Apple didn't sue Google, or LG, or Acer, or Cherry, or Sony, or all the Android manufacturers. They've sued Samsung over specific phone models. They've sued HTC over specific patents. They've sued Motorola over specific patents. In the cell phone industry, everyone seems to be suing each other.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
There was no thunderous stampede to make anything like tablets until the iPad.
Well there tablets before the iPad. Windows had been trying to push out their vision of the tablet for over a decade. They were simply laptops with a touchscreen and expensive. As such manufacturers tried and failed to sell many tablets. The thunderous stampeded started after Apple took a different approach to the problem: Scale up an iPod Touch not scale down a laptop. And have some apps for the device that utilize that touch interface.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Research some computer history, like for example Xerox PARC and the Star desktop and work from there
First of all if you did your research, you would have learned that Apple paid Xerox for the use of their ideas. Second, Apple borrowed the ideas of Xerox like the concept of the GUI and the thought of using the mouse as a pointer. Apple however had to develop the system and implementation on their own. If you ever saw the Star you would have seen that Apple didn't exactly copy it any more than GEOS copied both of them.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It is much demanded, despite being rather expensive.
In fact, the only thing that would stop me from buying it, was that they've copied Apple feature: no expansion slot.
But superior build quality, amazing screen and (still) open platform are still there (yet?). I hope they won't copy it all from Apple or I'll have to look for another tablet.
Who makes the screens in the iPad? Who is begging who to please supply them with more screens?
Apple seems to want to have a government-enforced monopoly in its product areas. The problem for suppliers is that Apple has quite a bit of volume. But, the suppliers supply more than just Apple. If the choices are between an Apple-only market volume and an everybody-but-Apple market volume, they'd probably chose to drop Apple as a customer.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
But I'm not talking about the average android user – I'm talking about the average slashdot user.
Three words.
Pot
Kettle
Black
I would put them in a sentence for you, but I'm afraid I might get sued by Apple.
They did, after all, invent the touchscreen. Hell, they invented the screen itself. They probably invented glass and maybe even the finger.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Yes, I'm obviously an Apple fan
Being fanatical can cloud your objectivity. Can you explain how Samsung is ripping off Apple more than Apple ripped off RIM (Blackberry) or Palm (Treo)?
Do you mean the jiggly-slidey dialogs like Web 2.0 sites were using at the time? Or just that Apple decided to make a tablet, like fans on MacOSRumors.com had been talking about for a decade?
It can't be the on-screen keyboard, or the online app store, those already existed. Just what unique features did the iPhones have that defined a new market? Nobody will deny Apple is good at integration work, but you're talking about defining a new market, not making incremental improvements.
I do give Apple credit for negotiating with AT&T to enable the visual voicemail feature on cell networks, the way corporate voicemail users were used to working. That was a very good business maneuver.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Many other people did it with physical side controls - this isn't some amazing new mechanism that Apple invented. All Apple did was translate a physical device and action to an on screen one. Do you honestly think this is an amazing innovation worthy of 20 years of monopoly?
I'm happy to vote with my wallet - Apple is not happy for me to do so and wishes to limit my choices by forcing others out of the market through litigation. This is why I'm unhappy with them.
the patent should NOT lie in the fact that you can slide something across the screen. The patent should lie in the implementation. Besides I have an android incredible 2. I have to slide down to unlock. How is that different then unlocking it vertically? Why aren't they trying to sue HTC?
Apple has a very big and growing market in the hole world that is increasing day by day.
I'm glad I don't live in the "hole" world. Sounds like a bad porn movie.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
But if, say, Ford were to finally invent a flying car, and decided to register a patent titled "door lock... on a flying car". Would you be happy if Ford were then able to stop any other manufacturer from building a flying car simply because they held a patent on the door locks? Never mind that door locks had been on cars, Ford were awarded them specifically for flying cars.
This is what Apple has done. People invented sliding locks and mechanisms hundreds if not thousands of years before Apple copied this simple mechanism and were awarded a patent for it because they did it "on a mobile phone". That isn't innovation and certainly isn't worth twenty years of market exclusivity. And it's a really lame way to try and compete in a free market.
It is a simplistic argument, but so is your response. Were Apple the first to manufacture a smart phone or a tablet? No. Were innovators automatically granted unrestricted monopolies on market segments that they create, then you would not have your beloved iDevices in the first place. Competition drives the market place, spurring Apple on to create new toys for you to buy just as much as any other company. Without competition all you will end up with is stagnation.
"Created a market"? No, the market existed before Apple ever touched it. Ever heard of the Blackberry? Technology improved, which is what allowed for the modern smartphone. That is what created the market. Apple just happened to be near the leading edge, and their massive PR ability allowed them to push the iPhone so that everyone and their mum wanted one. Without Apple, smartphones where going to happen anyways. Might have taken a bit longer, is all. Apple did a good job, and I admit that, as much as I hate them. And even if Apple single-handedly invented a market where none existed before, competition is how the free market works. It made smartphones better, yes, including the iPhone. Without the intense competition the iPhone would be far less advanced than it is now.
Now tablets on the other hand IMO don't have an actual market: people bought them because Apple made them. Fans though anything Apple made had to be good and worthwhile, so we should buy the iPad. And then occasionally take it out to play with it and justify its existence. Probably about 5% of people who bought a tablet of any sort can actually justify it over an actual laptop. Tablet PCs existed long before the iPad. Very few people bought them because very few people need a ~10 inch device thats not a laptop. And very few people still do, except as a toy. And I include the Galaxy Tab on this list. The EEE Transformer, OTOH, looks like it can do everything both tablets and laptops do, and therefore is actually a useful device generally.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Seriously, the volume of venom and vitriol whenever Apple does ANYTHING is ridiculous.
Agreed. You Apple fanbois should really take a chill pill.
There are a dozen handset and tablet makers whom Apple is not suing for anything
Really? Are you not aware of the Apple, Microsoft, Oracle alliance that purchased the Nortel patents with the intent of using them against Google? How about Apple and Microsoft's suit against Motorola?
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
You wouldn't be singing this tune if you had invented the iPhone or iPad, and essentially created two new markets with your unique design and then had tons of companies immediately start their photocopiers and try and blatantly rip you off by offering the same thing.
Yes, gods forbid that companies actually have to do some work instead of just thinking up new things. If another company can look at your idea, and make a better product out of it, then bully for them, they should be allowed to profit from it. Don't get all jealous because some other company took your idea and ran with it further than you did. If a company is so damned innovative, then they should have no problem running with that idea in a way that maintains their lead on the competition.
The fallacious part of your argument is that Samsung (or Android, really, as the UI element is part of the OS, not the hardware) is ripping Apple off by offering the same thing. Except they aren't. Samsung isn't selling an iPad2, they're selling a Galaxy Tab 10.1. The internals aren't the same, and hell, they don't even have the same hard buttons. Android isn't offering the same thing either. They aren't selling (or giving away, as it were) a fucking UI element, they're selling an entire fucking OS. Is it the same thing? Hell no it isn't. Does it look the same? Similar, sure. But if you can honestly sit there and tell me that two similar devices should have wildy different UIs, then you are a moron. It does not benefit anyone for two similar devices to have vastly different interfaces; would you like to relearn how to use a new Blu-Ray player every time you bought one? How about a TV? Oh no, Panasonic cried foul on Samsung using decimal numbers on their TV remotes. Now all Samsung TVs have to punch in their channels using binary. Does that sound like a good idea to you? They say imitation is the greatest form of flatery. Apparently no one told Apple this when they got all pissy pantsed and decided that Samsung was somehow going to steal sales based on one single UI element. (Hint: they're threatened by the product as a whole, and are using one patent they just so happen to hold to try to stifle competition.)
Don't go claiming bias either here. I don't own a smartphone, nor a tablet. I still rock an old Moto Razr since I barely talk on the phone. I have however had a chance to use both an iPad (it's part of my main project at work) and an Android tablet running Honeycomb (try it before you buy it at some B&M). I admit that I like both products, regardless of their manufacturers. My gripe is that I cannot understand where any company gets off patenting a single UI element and then trying to shut down competition based on the fact that they implemented something similar as <1% of another product. On the one hand I can't completely blame Apple for "playing the game" in this broken copyright system, but on the other hand, they're breaking my one and only tenant of life; don't be a dick. If a single UI element were a saleable item (as in, some entity would actually buy a particular implementation of said UI element) and a non-patent holder tried to sell that same UI element, then sure, take them to court. But no-one is ever going to buy a single UI element, it is far too impractical given just how many different ones you would need to buy to put together an interface, not to mention the fact that you want them all to look the same anyway.
So really, this patent shouldn't even be a patent. This just screams to me how broken the patent system is that a company can patent an idea that when implemented by its lonesome does not create a saleable object. Does this forgive Apple from exploiting the broken system to their benefit? Hell no it doesn't.
How about we stop allowing patents on the intangible and only allow patents for actual functional, saleable, physical objects. Have a great idea for something? That's great! The world runs on innovation! Now be the first person to market with something, and we'll let you have exclusive sale rights for a couple of years! It's high time we started rewarding actual work in this goddamn country instead of rewarding every nitwit with a fucking "idea".
Cool post bro, highfive \o
Well, Apple has come full circle here. Back in the 80s they were the underdog and were pushing for a more level playing field. Remember the "1984" commercial when they went after IBM/Microsoft? I think there's a general disdain for companies when they become too successful or too big. A few years ago Google was the darling of the Technorati but now with the privacy concerns raised recently and some of the E-Mails floating around in the Oracle/Google legal case it seems that they're just like every enterprise out there.
Personally, I won't buy anything with an Apple Logo on it. Why? Restrictions on content/use and frankly I can get better quality from other manufacturers. My kids have Ipod Nanos, etc. but I won't use them nor do I subscribe to the thought that I have to have vendor lock in which is what Apple wants you to have. It's a throwback to the early days of the automobile when Henry Ford went on to making his own tires for his cars. Then again he was a nutcase as well who went on to build projects like Fordlandia presumably to break up the tire monopolies at the time when in fact he wanted to create his own utopian society. When business leaders start building their own version of society we suddenly are in a James Bond Plot.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Saying android is a clone of iPhone is a bit like saying that iPhone is a clone of a Palm Treo. Other than the addition of a multi-touch capacitive screen and a somewhat more streamlined interface, the iPhone was not innovative other than it's marketing and building on a successful MP3 player brand. The similarities between an iPhone and an Android phone as analogous to the similarities between a Palm device and an iPhone. Increasing screen size doesn't exactly make it a unique platform either.
AJ Henderson
Or, perhaps, Apple believes that Samsung is... you know... infringing on their patents. It's not as if Apple is the only player in the industry suing others for patent violations, after all. I seem to recall a recent settlement in which Apple will be paying large amounts of money to Nokia.
I've seen a lot of rabid and mindless hatred of Apple on Slashdot. What I've not seen is a detailed breakdown of the patents in question, and a refutation of Apple's claim that Samsung has violated them.
Imagine all the people...
> Apple seems to want to have a government-
> enforced monopoly in its product areas.
Eh... that's the whole point of a patent in the first place.
Imagine all the people...
You get a gold star for being the first to make me laugh out loud this morning.
but such sentiments are not limited to slashdot, and are not limited to Android users. Besides, anti-apple bias is more to blame than loyalty to another product.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
No, patents do not need to be defended to remain valid. You are thinking of trademarks.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
. . . litigate. Come on fanbois, I want to hear how this is "innovative" and "no one has ever done it before". Better yet, tell me how this is Apple "making a better product". Is Apple a law firm now, as well as marketing company?
PS - Apple is still a member of MPEG-LA and BSA, right beside Microsoft.
Nathan's blog
I still don't see it being much demanded by anyone at this point. Maybe it will be, but right now aside from a few tech geeks and a few favorable reviews it seems to be selling just as well as any other iPad competitor at this point.
If you can't make a better product, sue, sue, and sue.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
I can tell you that the devices should have significantly different UIs or it probably is a copy of Apple's UI. If they developed it independent of Apple then why the heck did it look pretty much like a carbon copy? Perhaps you're the moron for your blind stance and misunderstanding of how an independently developed product would differ significantly from a competitor.
And this is not intangible, I have the functional, saleable item. You're simply willing for forgive Android's wholesale ripoff. If that's your opinion then fine, but at least be honest about it instead of wrapping it in fake arguments.
Without the ability of competing projects to copy each other, we would all be stuck with System 6.
This simple fact is obvious to those of us that actually understand technology and have some experience with it.
Apple fanboys don't fully appreciate the situation that even Apple is in and what would happen in a patent MAD scenario with corresponding 17 year periods of TOTAL STAGNATION enforced by the current state of patent law.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You must be confusing a very vocal fanboy minority from the 90s with the user community at large.
I was here and I certainly didn't argue that Apple was right in it's actions.
Although many of us liked to point out the hypocrisy of "freedom to innovate" rhetoric. Doing that and advocating that "Microsoft should be punished" are two VERY different things.
The only cognitive dissonance here is in your own head.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I'd say a goodly chunk of those users are using Android for two reasons:
1) It's an "open" platform. Yes, cell vendors to lock it down, but it is significantly more open than its competition, and it's significantly easier to install software through other channels.
2) It's generally cheaper to get into, especially if you're buying the phone outright with no contract.
There is a *ton* of variance in the interface of Android... LG's version of Android is different from Samsung's, is different from HTC's. They share the same core interface, but they also have some significant differences between them, features and apps that simply don't exist. It's a heterogeneous ecosystem that is inter-compatible, but different enough that it can provide for many different types of users. That is an advantage that Apple and Microsoft simply don't have, because they keep much more control over their devices.
And yes, I do use Android. I use it because it does what I want it to do. I have no doubt that what I want to do could be done by an iPhone, or with a WinMo phone either. I have no intention of switching to either of those devices, but that's largely because of the cost, not because of brand loyalty. In fact, I have almost no brand loyalty within Android... my last phone was an HTC, the one before that was Sony Ericcson, and I'm using an LG phone now.
The USPTO has absolutely messed up in this area!!! This technology group really operates differently than the others in the USPTO.
There is a difference between copying an idea and copying a design. It's the reason Apple didn't request an injunction against RIM over the PlayBook or Motorola over the Xoom. These products are distinguishable from the iPad in Apple's eyes. Now if you argue that design patents shouldn't exist then no company can protect the designs for which they may have invested significant amounts of R&D. There are those of us who think it would not be a good thing if any company can rip off another companies designs.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Because the Apple design patent specifically details a horizontal swipe. Vertical, curving, shape swipes are okay until someone patents those, I guess.
Agree completely! Now when are we going to level fines on GM's, Chevy's, and all of the other auto manufacturers wholesale ripoff of Ford's intellectual property!? The steering wheel, the parking brake, and windows that roll both up and down! These innovations took decades of R&D from the best engineers on the planet, just like Apple! It's time we kick those freeloaders to the curb and award both Ford and Apple a monopoly over their respective industries in perpetuity. It's the only fair thing...right?
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
LG for the majority, plus Samsung and Innolux, with other suppliers in the pipeline.
Apple doesn't need them, see above.
Apple is still the #1 smart phone manufacturer in the world, although Samsung is a close second. Android wins when you combine the sales of a dozen or so companies.
Context. Microsoft strong-arming Android phone manufacturers was obvious, they couldn't compete because of an inferior product, so used the legal system to hurt the competition.
Right now Apple is on top. Apple has the hottest-selling products and makes the most profit by far. Apple got to this position purely through making and marketing a better product.
To me the context says not "We can't compete on product so we'll sue" but instead says "Quit copying our stuff!"
so if vertical swipes are ok and everyone is doing it, then what is so special about horizontal swipes? seems to me that the term 'obvious' applies here clearly.
Apple also is taking action against HTC and Motorola, both bit players in the market. Motorola is having problems selling the small number of Xooms shipped, and the HTC Flyer isn't doing well either.
So it can't be that the Galaxy is good enough to have Apple scared.
In the early 90s. It was called the Newton. But it suffered from scope creep and not having the technology available. Even then it was quite innovative -- the ARM processor was developed in an Apple partnership with ACORN and VLSI for the Netwon.
Microsoft started talking about a vision for tablets that failed in the marketplace. Specifically, shoehorning a desktop operating system into a tablet form factor, usually requiring a pen to work right. It didn't work. Few bought it. Apple succeeded because the operating system was designed for touch-based handhelds. Microsoft saw this coming when they scuttled their upcoming Windows tablet right after the launch of the original iPad.
Yes, the App Store was genius, but it's because it broke the standard model of the cell companies. They always want to nickel-and-dime on your bill for every little feature. Apple wanted it open for development, people adding any functionality they want without a dime going to the cell company. AT&T had a long iPhone exclusivity because AT&T demanded it in return for taking such a risk on the new business model.
Android has a lot to thank Apple for, not only in introducing new hardware and software innovations to follow, but for using its clout to fundamentally shift the cell phone business to allow what Android now takes for granted.
It was a hell of a risk for Apple to take. The previous foray in the form of the ROKR was a flop. High risk taken to success deserves payoff. Android makers aren't taking much of a risk, just following the Apple-paved road.
Here's what Android looked like 2007. Oh, 2007, the year the iPhone was released - completely different UI.
http://pocketnow.com/android/remember-this-early-android-demo-video
In 2008 it was completely revamped.
Anyhow, Apple has promised to pay Samsung damages should its injunction be found invalid. So Apple believes it has a strong case, and if not, well, free money from Apple, and they didn't have to sell one device to earn it. (Not that the first mover advantage would've helped - those in AU who wanted it would've imported it much more cheaply from the US than buy it retail...).
No, patents do not need to be defended to remain valid. You are thinking of trademarks.
They do need to be defended to be respected however. If there are lots of violations of a particular patent in the wild, then it will seem less dangerous to other companies who want to make money off the patented idea without having to license. By vigorously defending the patent, it shows other would be opportunists that they should try some other idea to rip off for their personal gain. Better to be a hard target then a soft one.
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
1. Internet search says Treo had Threaded SMS prior to iPhone.
2. VVM was an innovation but isn't relevant to a discussion on tablets.
3. Unlimited Data existed before smart phones were even popular for feature phones.
4. This is not an innovation, it is simply a manufacturer having enough leverage to demand conditions to the carrier.
5. This is not an innovation, it is simply better design of a feature that already existed. It isn't innovation unless it is a new feature, otherwise it is just improving on what it copied.
6. Again, not an innovation, just better design.
7. The main UI for selecting apps is very similar, the applications are just better developed with stricter coding guidelines and a storefront that enforces them (this was arguably the one actual innovation with the iPhone.)
8. Again, not an innovation, just better design.
9. Again, not an innovation, just better design.
10. There were apps that could do this for treo.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the iPhone was not a giant step forward in terms of design, but it was NOT innovative. It did not change the basic way we design or use smartphones, it was just a much better implementation of existing thought processes. Other companies have made there own hardware designs running with it's own variations and are no different. They are perhaps not as much of a jump forward in design by some people's view, but I would consider my Asus Transformer for example to be a substantial jump forward from an iPad in relation to what matters to me.
As for Android, I think maybe part of the issue is you don't realize how different Android actually is from iOS. The platforms are very different under the hood. They have a similar look and feel to the extend of a home screen that has icons on it, but that is a carry over from PalmOS days and prior. The level of similarities between Android and iOS really are comparable to the similarities between iOS and PalmOS. I'm not saying they are the same at all, but I'm also arguing that Android and iOS are not the same at all. They use some common design improvements and go their own ways in others. Since they are design improvements and not innovations that are being copied (with the arguable exception of the app store idea), they really are no more a copy than the iPhone was from the Treo.
AJ Henderson
Samsung F700 (2006) vs iPhone (2007). LG Prada (2006) vs iPhone (2007) Engadget titled that article "Apple iPhone vs LG Prada: separated at birth?" because the phones are so similar.
All of the phone manufacturers have experimented with different case designs and UIs. It is disingenuous for Apple to pretend that they have innovated more than, say, Nokia. If Nokia had filed for patents in the 1970s and 1980s that were as broad as Apple's are now then they'd have patented the dialler, the idea of having a graphical display, the idea of attaching it to a battery for mobile comms etc, and the result would've been only one single cellphone manufacturer, instead of the competitive market that's benefited us all over the last two decades.
Patents are a government granted right to be the only producer of a single item. Patents were designed to destroy the competitiveness of the free market. The only other system where governments gave individual companies the right to be the sole manufacturer of an item was under communism, where factories would be allocated as an "item X supplier" regardless of whether they were the best or most productive. When the government grants a sole supplier the right to sell an item to the nation, whether via mandate or patent, then the effect is the same - the people lose their right to freely choose which companies they do business with.
Patents erode your freedom. They remove your freedom to create and sell items, and they remove your freedom to choose who you do business with.
Apple started designing a tablet in the early 2000s, and refocused that effort to making a multi-touch (not just touch) phone in 2005. In January 2007 this effort was introduced as the iPhone, which would be available some months later. Looks like SPB had a month to tweak their UI after they saw what Apple did.
Apple usually starts with a solid basic product to prove a concept, with a vision for how to bring it to maturity in steps, such as the App Store one year later.
The lack of cut&paste and multitasking are an example of that evolution. Apple couldn't initially figure out how to make either of them work WELL, and wasn't going to include anything half-assed. It was going to take time. The result: Their cut&paste is absolutely the best and their multitasking preserves battery life, and system stability and performance. I have an Android, and the cut&paste sucks, and the multitasking is hell.
Android 2.3.4, which is what the SGS II ships with
A slight correction: SGS2 ships with 2.3.3. There's no official update to 2.3.4 yet.
They are protecting their IP, it's protect it or lose it. I don't like the patent system as it exists but I also know it doesn't pay to try to be a lamb when you are surrounded by wolves.
This point is often raised, but here's an interesting fact for you: despite having a bunch of patents of its own, Google has yet to sue anyone for patent infringement.
The "grid of icons" concept has been present in mobile phones for years before iPhone - just remember Nokia's S60 (2001).
Oh come on - they merely switched focus to touchscreens once it became apparent how dominant they were going to be. They already had a touchscreen version that wasn't so different from what it turned in to; the main difference being more tweaking towards touch-friendliness (bigger, touch-oriented elements and no keypad fallbacks). That isn't really a massive revamp at all.
Would you like a slice of toast?
I take your meaning, but it's supposed to be specific inventions, not product areas. Not that I'm naive enough to believe the 1787 rationale, though.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Maybe the galaxy is different, but all the Android 3.X devices I've seen so far have a circle where you slide the lock icon to any border of the circle to unlock.
How is that the same as Apple's version?
Given that their software and UI design team is orders of magnitude larger than their hardware and ID team(s), yes, they do. The device is nothing without its OS, UI, SDK, dev tools, etc. Saying they don't "make hardware" because they use contract manufacturing like everyone else is pedantic to the point of being silly...
Also, do you have any evidence to back the statement "a lot of the design work is outsourced?" I tried to confirm that, but everything I read says the opposite, to the point that Apple is proud enough of that fact that they put "Designed by Apple in California" on every box.
from 1993.
Better design is innovation.
I don't like the iPhone because it's too locked down for me, but lets not lie to make ourselves feels better, m;kay?
The great and powerful wikipedia says:
Although the term is broadly used, innovation generally refers to the creation of better or more effective products, processes, technologies, or ideas that affect markets, governments, and society.
Are good ol' friend Merriam says:
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty
I don't think very many people on /. actually know what innovation means.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Most companies would really like to have that kind of rapid erosion.
Minor detail, it is "our" not "are" good ol' friend Marriam and that definition agrees with me.
An innovation is the introduction of something new. A new idea, method or device. The ideas, methods and device were equivalent in function but better in design. It was a better implementation of a given concept, but was not a new concept. Since Android does not use the same implementation of the concept, Apple is not innovating in some way that Samsung copied any more than Apple copied it from the predecessors they improved on.
The Wikipedia definition might consider design to be innovation, but it might not. It is less clear than the Marrian Webster definition and it only says what it generally is used to refer to.
Either way, it's semantics. My point is that they things that while the iPhone was better designed than previous smartphones, the things that Android copied have existed in PDAs and smart phones for long before the iPhone. (With the exception of the app market, but I don't really see the idea of having a store to get apps as being innovative as it existed in other platforms prior to the introduction to handhelds (see Steam).) So as it relates to this case, Apple is full of crap.
AJ Henderson
If Apple considers it a threat to their devices, that only decreases any potential interest from me...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
a bit like saying that iPhone is a clone of a Palm Treo
Hah, I think I'd prefer an iPhone running PalmOS to one running iOS...hey neither one had Flash and both only have "fast app switching" in place of true multitasking, so the only thing you're sacrificing is some of the games...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. Did too - had this on my Tro 650 at least, IIRC the 180 had it as well.
2. That is a telco feature.
3. It wasn't Apple. This is a telco feature, smart guy. Had this on my 650 and 180.
4. BZZT, wrong. Had this on my 180 and 650, purchased unlocked. All PalmOS devices had this apart from some later Treos.
5. Subjective. Blazer was decent, and you could install any browser you liked.
6. Subjective. The treos I had were very stable.
7. Intuitive? I don't know about that but to this day, PalmOS is the most streamlined GUI for smartphone use I've ever used.
8. Later phones have higher resolutions, how shocking! Are you going to say more processing power next? I never noticed a viewing angle problem on a PDA, being personal devices for use by 1 person.
9. Treos were actually better - the resistive screen was more accurate and could be operated with objects other than a bare finger (not fingernail). "Responsiveness" is totally up to software, and the Treos were very fast
10. I'm pretty sure the Treo 650 had this feature.
So did you pull all of that out of your ass or do you think the original Palm Pilot was the only PalmOS device?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I'm not sure if respect is the right word, but this situation is far less important than a trademark violation. Also, I would say that generally speaking, the defendant in a patent lawsuit tends to be the one better categorized as a 'target,' particularly in fields like smartphones where it's practically impossible to not be infringing countless patents.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Samsung designs and builds their own. So does LG, ZTE, Huawei, and HTC. Apple doesn't. And as far as the design being outsourced, I know - I've done design for Apple, and it was done either onsite in Cupertino, or from my US office outside of Seattle.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
In January 2007 this effort was introduced as the iPhone, which would be available some months later. Looks like SPB had a month to tweak their UI after they saw what Apple did.
SPB Mobile Shell was announced in August 2006 with preliminary screen shots leaked in September 2006. Looks like Apple had 3-4 months to tweak their UI after they saw what SPB did, and 2-3 months to further tweak their UI after actual hands-on with a shipping product.
Unless you mean you want to rewrite that history again?
Apple usually starts with a solid basic product to prove a concept, with a vision for how to bring it to maturity in steps, such as the App Store one year later.
The lack of cut&paste and multitasking are an example of that evolution. Apple couldn't initially figure out how to make either of them work WELL, and wasn't going to include anything half-assed. It was going to take time. The result: Their cut&paste is absolutely the best and their multitasking preserves battery life, and system stability and performance.
Correct - it was a featurephone - not a smartphone - when it started. No downloadable applications, no multitasking (it still does not have real multitasking, like Symbian or Windows Mobile), both of which most consider as required for a smartphone. It was a pretty featurephone, and that's about it.
No history rewrite needed.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Apple's got the patent: it's patent no. 7,657,849. They could sue if it falls under the claims of the patent - it's clearly worded to be separate to a physical unlock switch.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
That would be a failing on your part sir,
People are falling off the Apple bandwagon left, right and centre here in Oz, telco's are advertising Android heavily and the purchasers are starting to favour Android over Iphone in Oz. I only know one person who still chooses Apple and he's pretty tragic, the rest have switched to the Samsung Galaxy S 2 or HTC Incredible or Sensation now their 2 year contracts on 3GS' have run out..
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Except EVERYTHING is physical. You still have to touch a screen, which is a physical device.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Yes, but even you couldn't argue that the concept outlined in the abstract:
A device with a touch-sensitive display may be unlocked via gestures performed on the touch-sensitive display. The device is unlocked if contact with the display corresponds to a predefined gesture for unlocking the device. The device displays one or more unlock images with respect to which the predefined gesture is to be performed in order to unlock the device. The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined location and/or moving the unlock image along a predefined path. The device may also display visual cues of the predefined gesture on the touch screen to remind a user of the gesture.
... is at all similar to something where you unlock a device by moving a physical switch. It's quite explicit in that it talks about unlocking a touch screen device - no claim is made to the concept of locking/unlocking interaction with a device. Nokia's two-factor unlock with a physical keyboard wouldn't be affected by this, for instance. Nor would the dot-pattern-trace unlock - unless some judge chooses to accept "predefined" as meaning "predefined by the user", which I don't believe would be the case.
So Apple have a reasonably non-generic patent on the concept of sliding an image on-screen along a path (or to a location) to unlock functionality. They don't have a patent on the generic concept of unlocking functionality.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
Straw man argument. Apple never said that they innovated more than anyone else, nor that they owned the right to all touch-screen phones. But nobody--silly article title aside--would confuse the LG and the iPhone. And even that F700 is strikingly different in many of its design features.
We can certainly argue the merits of the different types of laws (patents &c) that cover this sort of thing, but are you really (a) saying that you think that the LG/F700 share as much with an iPhone as the more recent Samsung products, and (b) that given those laws, there is absolutely no problem that Apple solved in a way that was unique and non-obvious enough at the time of their solution that they have a right to protect it?
Apple is going after Samsung for some very specific things. It's not that they're making a tablet or a touch-screen phone, but rather that they are using specific design elements which Apple feels were unique at the time of creation, and which Apple feels are signature items.
The question is, should knock-offs like you see in the China market be legal? How far should it be allowed to go? Similar look and feel? Similar branding? What if Samsung actually changed their logo to an apple with the bite going the other way, and called it an !Phone or better yet, a Phone or jPhone? Once a product is popular, should it be open season, and should its makers take the imitation as flattery?
The other day, I wanted to buy Tiny Wings, a game for iOS (and maybe Android, I don't know), and I had forgotten the name. I searched for Little Wings. Similar names, graphics similar enough to what I had recalled from the screen shot I'd seen, and 99c. Woo hoo! I bought it! Worst game in the world. Clearly--CLEARLY--capitalizing on the success of Tiny Wings. They've probably made hundreds, maybe even thousands of dollars making a crappy mock up of a great game. And they probably get to keep that money because the 30 minutes it'd take me to try to return it, contest the charge, etc, costs more than the dollar I spent.
Is that the same thing as what's happening between Apple and Samsung? I don't know. Apple certainly thinks so. They may be wrong, but they have the right to throw down the gauntlet, and Samsung are big boys and girls. They can defend themselves.
Anyway, what I don't understand are two things: the level of vitriol, and the insane double-speak from the anti-Apple crowd. The same person will decry Apple as stifling innovation while also trumpeting the "fact" that Android is "winning". If Android is winning, then go ahead, let Apple fight a few battles to protect their IP. Regardless of the outcome, Samsung will do fine, as will HTC, as will Google. And maybe Apple will, too.
The CB App. What's your 20?
I had a BlackBerry Pearl for years before I got an iPhone. It had a grid of icons that you accessed using a little track ball.
That phone was a steaming pile of shit from the moment I pulled it out of the box. It was OK as a phone, but the beauty of the BlackBerry design was that it was so annoying to use, you would never, ever, ever want to actually fire up any other application. The music player SUCKED. The browser SUCKED. The Outlook client SUCKED. Even simple things like notifications SUCKED. There was no way to turn off the vibrator; I get 200 emails a day, and that thing was going off constantly. I had to turn it off in order to get work done, them my boss would freak out because he couldn't reach me by phone.
Just having a grid of icons doesn't cut it. I didn't come to the iPhone until #4, but the user experience is so incredibly different that it's like they were invented in different centuries.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Seriously, the volume of venom and vitriol whenever Apple does ANYTHING is ridiculous.
Agreed. You Apple fanbois should really take a chill pill.
I see what you did there. There are definitely annoying fanbois out there, as there are fandroids.
There are a dozen handset and tablet makers whom Apple is not suing for anything
Really? Are you not aware of the Apple, Microsoft, Oracle alliance that purchased the Nortel patents with the intent of using them against Google? How about Apple and Microsoft's suit against Motorola?
Intent? Don't give me intent. That's silly. If they open up a dozen new lawsuits against all the top Android manufacturers, I'll change my tune and agree with you on this point.
But don't forget, Apple did buy these patents in alliance with two other major companies, both of which could be major competitors in the handset/tablet market. WP7 and Java are real platforms, just as Android is. WP7 is pretty innovative. And pretty cool, actually; I'd consider it for a future phone. Why do you think that it is that Apple is not going after Microsoft at all on that one? Maybe because it's a radically different interface design, built from the ground up to occupy the same space without just copying the most popular platform.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Just like samsung had to develop their system and implementation on their own.
The difference which I suspect is over your head is the idea of the GUI was a new one in Apple's time. They saw what Xerox did, paid them for their ideas, but implemented their own system. Their system advanced on many of the things of the GUI which Xerox did not have like clipping regions and drag and drop. Samsung saw the iPhone and just copied their look and feel. That's a major difference.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
IANAL, but my wife is, and based on what I've learned from her, I can guarantee you that if indeed the reason for the patent enforcement is a trade agreement or treaty, that the locals have some means of addressing inadequacies that they find in anything that they are expected to enforce. Most Aussies I know don't take no shit from nobody. Most lawyers I know don't take no shit from nobody. I'm sure that Aussie lawyers are not a group to be messed with.
Haven't you seen that YouTube video, "Aussie Lawyer don't give a shit"?
The CB App. What's your 20?
You miss the point. This isn't about which phone is better. This is about the fact that none of those Apple UI "inventions" for which they slap people around with patents are innovative in and of themselves.
Either way, it's semantics
We're trying to discuss things that are innovative and you don't agree with our definition of innovation. Then you just dismiss it as being semantics?
Apple is full of crap.
I guess that's all you have to say here. No need to write full length posts.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
The Newton was in development from 1987.
But then it was based on the Macintosh, which was sort of based on the Lisa, which took a lot of ideas from the STAR, and the basic idea of pen computing goes back to the 1800s.
Except by that time the iPhone UI would have been long-since finalized. Apple was already nit-picking over individual pixels in the icons.
Unlimited multitasking is horrible for handhelds. The iPhone has had multitasking from the beginning -- it just wasn't available to user apps. Apple knew unlimited multitasking would suck, so didn't include any user app multitasking at all until it could be done right. The instant sleep/wake is perfect for almost all cases, with exceptions for things like music and phone calls through specific controlled APIs.
This is what Apple is going for. They don't want what I get on my Andoid, a background task sucking up the power to make the task I'm working on unresponsive, or interfering with the ability to quickly answer phone calls.
As far as apps, the definition of a smart phone has been sliding. The IBM Simon did a lot less than the original iPhone, and it's considered to be the first smart phone.
Why do you think that it is that Apple is not going after Microsoft at all on that one? Maybe because it's a radically different interface design, built from the ground up to occupy the same space without just copying the most popular platform.
My guess would be because Microsoft has a much deeper patent portfolio (believe it or not, Apple didn't invent EVERYTHING). Apple tangled with MS in court before and got their asses handed to them on a platter. Another reason could be the MS has not managed to garner enough of the market to pose a threat to Apple.
Apple fanbois like to have it both ways. First they say Android wholesale copied the iOS UI, then they rant on about how much better (inferring "different") the iOS UI is. I develop on both the iOS and Android platforms and there is absolutely nothing vaguely similar between the two at the API level, so sorry, your "copying" accusation just doesn't hold water.
Have you done any WP7 development? You're point about WP7 being "built from the ground up" is completely bogus. WP7 development is as close to Windows .Net development as possible, given the differences in devices.
My question to you is, do you dislike innovation? It seems to me that if you want Apple to continue to innovate, you would welcome the Android competition (including Samsung) because no other platform is in a position to place as much pressure on Apple to keep improving. Using the courts to shield them from competition is not my idea of innovation.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Yeah, talk about feeding the beast.
Galaxy Tab is sooo good even Apple's tried to stop its release!
The preceding message was brought to you by Google Inc. If you are going to astroturf, try being a little less obvious.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
1. Did too - had this on my Tro 650 at least, IIRC the 180 had it as well.
2. That is a telco feature.
Which was created by Apple and then pushed by Apple for them to implement. Visual voice mail did not exist for cellphones before that time.
Wow and they say that Apple fanboys have their heads in the clouds but you Palm fanboys take the cake. I don't need to go any further than this point because it demonstrates how bad and/or jaded your memory is.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Edge bounce....
Like the ball in pong 30+ years ago.
Balls bounce,
Books bounce.
Doors bounce,
Windows bounce in real life...
Doth art imitate life validate a patent?
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
No, actually, my point is key. An invention isn't just an amorphous concept like "grid of icons". It goes to the implementation of the thing. You can have one grid of icons UI that is basically unusable, and another which looks the same at first glance, but is incredibly useful. It is the details of the implementation that hold the innovation. To say that Apple didn't invent anything because all their UI is is a grid of icons is to ignore the essence of innovation.
Put simply, if they hadn't added their own elements to the equation--by innovating--the iPhone experience would be no different from the BB Pearl experience. You're right that it doesn't matter which is better; they could have invented something that was far worse. But it'd still be an invention.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Apparently you didnt read either Apple's brief nor have actually seen a Galaxy and an IPhone because it's obvious to most people the two can be confused which each other. You know the reason Apple did sue RIM for the Torch? Because it looks nothing like an iPhone. As for WD? You need to spell that out as Western Digital has nothing to do with this case.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I love my android stuff. Apple just shows how crappy they are by running scared telling mommy that droid is beating them up.... If anything were to happen to android I can tell you, I am not buying an apple.