Slashdot Mirror
HTC Sues Apple Using Google Patents
AlienIntelligence writes "Apparently to stay viable in the IP wars, HTC secured some patents from Google (who purchased them originally from Palm Inc., Motorola Inc. and Openwave Systems Inc.) on the 1st of September. The patents were used to fire a new salvo of shots across Apple's bow today, September 7th. HTC filed infringement claims against Apple in federal court in Delaware, suing based on four of those patents that originally were issued to Motorola. Additional complaints were filed with the U.S. ITC based on the other patents."
Do you really think they would be doing this if Apple weren't?
Apple started it. To quote Gruber: "fair’s fair once you start shooting in a patent war, and Apple started the shooting in this one."
"...HTC secured some patents from Google (who purchased them originally from Palm Inc., Motorola Inc. and Openwave Systems Inc.) on the 1st of September."
If HTC secured them from Google, how then are these patents Google patents?
A better heading could be:
"HTC acquires patents from Google then employs them to sue Apple."
How about that?
Because of their history of operations, and the philosophy of the founders; where as Apple turned into the sue machine about a decade ago.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Do you expect them to lie down while Apple try to systematically crush android OEMs?
"but, but.. Apple started it!!" Well, boohoo. If your sister annoys you and you break her arm as a result, you're still doing wrong.
Have you met my sister?
So, if Apple files patents suits, they're an annoying sister, but if Google (or its proxies) file patent suits, they're arm-breaking thugs?
Google is defending Android. Not HTC. Google doesn't give a **** about HTC. Or not being evil. They have a product, and they will defend it. They weren't going to mess with Apple in the first place, because they don't care about them either.
Because they didn't, until Apple started? If you don't do something, then you're the sort of company that doesn't do something.
About a year ago as the patent litigation really started picking up steam, I saw no reason for them to slow down until the situation reaches a critical time in which the courts or the legislative government calls for an end to all of it. It hasn't even gotten close to that critical moment yet, but I believe it will come. Meanwhile, we will have to see some serious consequences to the US economy before that happens... and it will happen.
Meanwhile, Apple should have realized that this would be a likely consequence. It's not like they were suing Franklin or another Apple-clone/compatible maker. They have exceeded themselves in this case and are behaving frivolously and made themselves a big giant target. They will lose and lose badly.
What a stupid comparison. And I mean mind numbing, Fox pundit stupid.
If someone starts shooting at you, and you shoot back, you aren't doing 'wrong'.
It'snot like Google sent people who Apple HQ to break arms.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I assume you are one of those apple consumers that has the religious parts of their brain activated when thinking about Apple.
Google is not trying to destroy apple, just trying to stop them destroying the smart phone/tablet market...which is their aim.
So in other words if you try to break my arm I am damned well going to break yours first if I can, or at least subdue you!!
This is Slashdot. Apple good, Google bad M-W-F. Google Good, Apple Bad on T-TH. They get weekends off.
FTFY.
The lawyers win, everyone else loses. Just like most patent disputes between large companies.
All the Android makers need to launch hundreds of patent lawsuits each against Apple. That's the recommended punishment for a company that actually makes something acting like a patent troll.
Funny, I've never seen Google misspelled as Apple. That's the craziest typo I've ever seen.
You shouldn't be able to sell a patent. Period.
Having HTC have to settle the suit because neither HTC nor Google wants to lower themselves to Apple's level is hardly in the interest of anybody besides Apple and Apple's share holders.
It is perfectly relevant, it's a very different matter to use patents defensively than it is to use them for offensive purposes or rent keeping the way that Apple and MS do. Yes, it's less than ideal, but at the end of the day, we have patents and getting run out of the market for refusing to use them isn't going to help the consumers; or yourself make a profit.
Do you have empirical evidence on this?
(+1, Disagree)
That would be reasonable in a sane patent system. To make the obligatory car analogy, you and I both have dirty cars but own buckets, rags, water and soap. Both of us realize putting water and soap in the bucket, then using a rag to wash the car would get the car clean. You think of it a little bit before I do, or perhaps run off to the patent office first, and I now can't wash my car for the next 17 years, or have to pay you every time I do.
People would get much less bent out of shape if patent quality wasn't such absolute crap and getting crap patents overturned wasn't expensive.
Funny, I've never seen Google misspelled as Apple. That's the craziest typo I've ever seen.
The keys are like right next to each other
The reality is that *every tech company* that has done so, does not include google. Putting google and microsoft in the same category is a known microsoft shilling technique.
In reality, google has yet to ever, offensively go after anyone with patents. Microsoft and apple on the other hand, have even gone as far as trying to do the ITC loophole, and trying to directly restrict competition in other countries. Not the same.
We can blame all of the tech companies for not trying to extinguish software patents and reform patent law. None of the software companies think they are using patents offensively, all of them believe they are simply defending what they came up with. Neither Google, nor Microsoft, nor Apple are without blame.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
In the future, the hardware will be free. The software will be free. You won't be able to use any of it though, because the patent portfolios will not be free, and they will not be cheap. We'll have to purchase separate patent license agreements from each of whatever handful of companies survives this apocalypse.
A: "Cool, what's that?"
B: "It's the iPhone 9."
A: "But... it's got color icons!"
B: "Oh, yeah... I downloaded the Samsung 'folio from the patent store."
A: "Doesn't that cost six trillion US yuan???"
B: "Nah I have a jailbroken patent manager!"
A: "Coooool. Color icons."
Funny, I've never seen Google misspelled as Apple.
You are correct.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If Google was serious about patent reform, why would they spend $12 billion to acquire Motorola Mobility to get their patents? Why wouldn't Google simply spend a couple more millions on lobbyists to stress the need for patent reform. And yes, Google has never used patents offensively yet, but the very fact that they don't spend more money attacking the root of the problem rather than treating some of the symptoms is quite worrying.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
For a lot of years all the tech companies, but particularly the phone manufacturers, have existed in a state of what they believed was mutually assured destruction. After all, the products did have to be compatible on at least a basic level for there to be a market at all. So almost all patents were either cross-licensed or available under RAND terms.
Apple has since entered the market and really kicked over the wasp's nest. They had no long term investment in past patents and gradual product development. So they came onto the scene with the iPhone 1, licensed all the basic standards and then refused to cross-license with anyone.
Because apparently they believe that the situation is not mutually assured destruction. So the war has gone from a cold one to a hot one.
It's arguable who started the actual legal battles. Nokia and Motorola were dicking around with patents that were supposed to be under RAND terms for standards reasons in order to try and force Apple to cross-license their patents. Apple has been on the warpath about their multi-touch and design IP.
It will be interesting to see if Apple can get out of this without some form of mandatory cross-licensing being imposed. If they can it should be a very interesting shake-up. It would be the first time in the phone industry that a major company would be using their patents to secure limited monopoly of developments instead of simply being a legal bargaining chip.
Where did I say Apple is always right? All I ever say around here is that Apple isn't always *wrong*, which is what you jackasses here seem to think.
Calling these patent infringements on either side "stealing" is flat out silly. Though if you want to call it that, then apple stole from google and HTC, google+HTC (order kinda varies here, too much research to figure out what ridiculous patent was filed and infringed upon first) stole from apple, apple started shooting first then google gave HTC a gun to start firing back. Right now in the mobile phone industry, EVERY possible conceivable invention, and several inconceivable ones are covered by multiple patents owned by multiple different companies. The only way to defend in the industry is to respond back, oh I'm infringing on 4 of your patents, oh yeah well your infringing on 4 of mine also, we both break even with just a few billion down the drain in lawyer fees, any company must either do that, or just say oh my bad I'll stop selling phones. Just flat out dropping out isn't an option, they are in it way to deep, so all that can be done is to assist the companies making their phones by preventing them from getting steamrolled.
This is like the nerd version of reality television. Apple and Google are BFF until Jobs sees Schmidt making out with iPhone Joe. Then it's like OMGWTFBBQ and Google is no longer welcome in the house of fruit. Srsbzns means that hurt Jobs is going to stick daggers into Schmidts new BFFs, HTC, Samsung and Moto. Stuck and bleeding Moto threatens to turn on Samsung and HTC unless Schmidt makes Google tie the knot with Moto.
Then the surprise of next week, Jobs makes a quick exit because he feels totally ill and then drunk Apotheker shows up and announces that he is aborting his billion dollar baby. Mistress Rubenstein looks sheepishly at his shoes.
Meanwhile, HTC grabs some patents out of Google's drawers and waves them in front of Apple's face...
It's funny how slashdotters always point out how Google doesn't sue for patent issues, but conveniently don't mention how they're having these proxy wars via other companies. Just like all the other companies.
Excuse me, but you come across as an Apple apologist. Hands up, everybody who thinks Apple is the good guy here.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Because Google is not a majority of Congress. Being serious about patent reform does not mean being successful at patent reform. If it was as simple as throwing money at Congress, smoking would still be allowed everywhere, Joe Camel would be selling cigarettes to kids, and cigarette packs would warn you that smoking makes you dangerously sexy.
es, and that's exactly how it's supposed to work, assuming no prior art.
Are you _really_ suggesting apple should have the right to all things touch screen and square with rounded edges?
Nothing you ever come up with is completely original. It all builds from your prior experience with other things. This is how people learn and progress.
So you think apple and windows shouldn't have ever existed too? because xerox should have patented their display system and kept it locked down to extremely expensive business systems for 20 years?
People don't like your idea because it stifles progress by decades.
Your presumption that Apple's case will win, whereas HTC/Google's case must lose, shows that you assume Apple is always right.
How do you know HTC/Google's case has no merit instead? If I am allowed to use the word 'steal' here like the legion of Apple fanboys emulating the RIAA...
Maybe Apple actually STOLE from those new Google patents instead?
No, not an apple fanboy.
...but I bet you read daringfireball... Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Google never has done anything like that.
Apple, on the other hand, has a long history of making bogus intellectual property claims, going back to the 1980's. If Apple had had its way, they would have been the only company to be allowed to create any kind of window system, even though they didn't invent the technology. And they are trying to put the same sleazy stunt with phones and tablets.
Google has access to tens of millions of viewers. They can change their logo and the talk around the office cooler is about an obscure Polish artist's 208th birthday. Surely Google can do something like that about patent reform.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Very true. I made that point myself in another post.
No, it's not. Patents are supposed to be non obvious. Let's go a step farther. You invent a car that can go to the store, buy your groceries, and put them away. You patent it, and all is well with the world. *I* rush off and patent washing a grocery-buying car with a bucket, soap, water, and a rag--something that has NEVER been done before (but is the obvious way to do it)! Patents are a completely artificial construct society built to encourage innovation. You invest time and money to build something and we'll give you exclusivity for a period of time. It's an incentive to innovate, not some natural right to deprive everyone else in the world the right to build something or perform a certain process.
See the problem? Your grocery-buying car is a REAL invention. It's not obvious. Mine wasn't. Mine is in the class of patents which get granted when someone takes a common idea and tacks "on the internet!" on the end. Patents were never intended to cover such things.
As to why "nerds" think such things, it's simply because we're practitioners of the discipline and are familiar with how to solve these kinds of problems. I don't presume to speak for everyone, but I don't have an issue with all patents, or even all software patents. I have a problem with patents which solve a problem in the way 90+ out of 100 competent developers would solve it. If they can, it is obvious and fails the patentability test.
Hallelujah brother.
Please. I am not trolling. Just adding a humorous preface. (NB: humorous to non-apple fanboys)
PS: Steve Jobs for pres.
More to the point, Apple has been using highly questionable design patents, not to mention some very questionable chicanery.to attempt to fool courts, but now finds itself against competitors in possession of real and meaningful patents on pertinent technologies.
Maybe Apple should spend less time trying to use the courts as its henchman.
Oh and the Apple fanboy posting here is a fucking useless retard.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Please cite one instance of Google launching a patent infringement assertion against anyone without them or their partners being attacked first. Just one instance. If you cannot then your argument has absolutely no merit.
Nobody comes out of this looking like the "good guys". The net result of this fiasco will probably be a cross-licensing agreement and a bunch of rich lawyers. (I don't begrudge the lawyers anything, btw... everyone's gotta make a buck)
How in the world does your analogy fit into this discussion? Please elaborate.
"Your honor, my client never shot anyone before he bought that gun."
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Hey one out of thousands of industry news web sites agrees with me.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
For over 10 years, Slashdot has been evangelizing Google for ideological reasons. It's going to take a while for its readership to change its beliefs. Hell, earlier today came a Google memo in the Oracle-Google case, where Google proclaimed not to "develop in the open" and to give privileged partners early access to source code.
Hey goon, It was nerds that created computing. The notion that you can't sit down in front of your computer and write code that is totally different form what Apple or Microsoft wrote but you get dragged into court because these gatekeepers want to claim ownership of your code that they didn't write is ridiculous. Screw them and all the goons who mindlessly support this 'all your code are belong to us' brigade. screw em.
Oh, okay, that justifies Google filing patent lawsuits using proxy companies. They're not hypocritical since someone else did it first.
I assume you are one of those apple consumers that has the religious parts of their brain activated when thinking about Apple.
Google is not trying to destroy apple, just trying to stop them destroying the smart phone/tablet market...which is their aim.
So in other words if you try to break my arm I am damned well going to break yours first if I can, or at least subdue you!!
You seem to believe that the fact Google is suing to defend its product justifies the suing, but that's exactly how Apple feels about suing to defend its product. In Apple's eyes, they have been ripped off by Android manufacturers cloning the iPhone and iPad and have the right to sue them for it.
The point is that Slashdotters claim Google never sues over patents, but they most certainly do. So that argument can no longer be used.
No one is forced to use Google's search, it's not as if they control the web and can force anyone, user or advertiser, to their site.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Why, your post sounds completely calm, rational, and open-minded, especially the part where you don't provide any examples or evidence.
Someone could just as easily respond with "Maybe Android OEMs should spend less time ripping off the iPhone."
The situations are different. Android is effectively a consortium of companies with Google as lead developer of the operating system and development tools. Apple owns the "i" line. Thus there positions are entirely different. In this case Google is lending an Android manufacturer a helping hand against a company with ludicrous patents but a chest full of money to keep competitors tied up in the courts for years. No matter how you look at it, Apple is the bad guy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
there's a difference between offensive, and defensive attacks.
Poor, poor Apple :(
(sob!)
Touch-screens weren't invented by Apple. Smartphones and tablets were not invented by Apple. In fact, I can't really think of anything Apple sells that ultimately wasn't someone else's invention first. They're good marketers, I'll give them that, but this idea that you can patent a round-edged rectangular tablet is beyond ludicrous. If Apple is so superior, surely their products can compete without abusive court cases.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Wow, do Slashdotters really believe Microsoft is still some huge, dangerous entity of evil? I haven't heard the "embrace/extend/extinguish" line in years.
Wait a minute - you actually believe that Apple comes up with these great new designs and ideas and these evil other guys are blatantly "stealing" those wondrous innovations that no one except Apple could possibly come up with? Like the square design for a tablet?
Please tell me that's not what you believe.
This stupid false-equivalence is ridiculous. It is at best cynical to state that Apple's and Microsoft's thinks their offensive use of patents is a defensive use. Lemme ask you this. If someone came into your house and shot someone then claim they were just defending themself would you be so quick swallow their arguments? Just in case you weren't aware patents can be used offensively or defensively Can you cite one instance Just one where Google has used patents offensively? By the way offensive use of patents is the initiating of a patent action against some one. Defensive use of patents is suing someone after they have initiated and action against you first. Just in case you were unaware. There is a difference between stockpiling patents for defensive use and actually initiating patent actions against others. The difference is stark.
Apple is trying to refight the UI design battle it lost over two decades ago. It didn't win that time and it won't win this time. In fact, now it has basically kicked up a hornet's nest by picking fights with people who can use actual legitimate technology patents to smack them, and Apple will regret ever having tried refight the UI war. It was moronic and shortsighted. They would have been better off just to simply work on market penetration, like the other mobile companies have been doing for fifteen years.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Welcome to the current patent and legal system?
Google had no interest in mountains of patents and this type of litigation until the competition started using it to attack them. That left them no choice but to retaliate or get pushed out of the market. Saying it's childish isn't really fair to Google--they're just playing by the rules that have been in place now for the last couple of decades. Let your government representatives know how you feel, but don't expect companies to stay above this kind of behavior when, legally, the only alternative is to give up on a product.
How did you survive from infancy without your parents tying you in a bag and burying you in the back yard and telling your brothers and sisters never to speak your name again?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Nobody comes out of this looking like the "good guys".
Your opinion, not mine.
The net result of this fiasco will probably be a cross-licensing agreement and a bunch of rich lawyers. (I don't begrudge the lawyers anything, btw... everyone's gotta make a buck)
Very true, even the mercenaries and crack dealers. Oh wait, there are moral and ethical limits.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Apple is trying to refight the UI design battle it lost over two decades ago. It didn't win that time and it won't win this time.
There have been some changes in the last 20 years. If the 1-Click patent is valid why wouldn't Apple's patents be ?
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
It's funny how you left out the entire rest of the paragraph. Here it is in full:
Well, for starters, Apple didn't invent touch screens, smartphones or tablets.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
They're suing over patents using a proxy company today.
Google are helping an Android hardware vendor defend themselves from Apple's litigation.
Your blind hatred of Google is making you crazy.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
The "Google NEVER files patent lawsuits!" meme is officially dead. Fanboys are flipping out in the comments, trying to come up with new arguments to defend a multi-billion dollar corporation and pin the blame on others.
Well, technically, it's HTC that sues Apple. Google still hasn't file a patent lawsuit
I agree Google is just doing what it needs to do but I could do without their whining. They knew what they were getting into with Android, from potential Java lawsuits to getting heat from Apple, but they didn't have any choice. Google didn't have a choice because they couldn't let Apple have the power to lock them out of the mobile market and their OEM's had no choice because they were blind sided by Apple to the point where it could buy their entire industry out of petty cash.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Hypothetical: Judge gets annoyed with infinitesimal patent differences, and strikes down a whole bunch of patents as invalid, both Apple's and Motorola/Google's.
Question: Which side walks away with a sly smile on their faces?
That's the side that isn't abusing patents.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
To remove the Google-bias slant you added, it's more like:
Google is an organization of anti-gun activists who profess their opposition to fighting, yet they arm people to fight for them because, hey, if they don't defend themselves, they go down.
Hmmm... you mean like the US'es (or any other country) Department of Defense?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Amazon didn't invent clicking on things either. They still won.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Are you _really_ suggesting apple should have the right to all things touch screen and square with rounded edges?
No, and no one else is suggesting this either.
Nothing you ever come up with is completely original. It all builds from your prior experience with other things. This is how people learn and progress.
Irrelevant.
So you think apple and windows shouldn't have ever existed too? because xerox should have patented their display system and kept it locked down to extremely expensive business systems for 20 years?
Where do you get these straw men?
People don't like your idea because it stifles progress by decades.
First off, it's not my idea. Second, *people* like patents. It's only a bunch of whiny little bitches on nerd forums that dislike them.
Your presumption that Apple's case will win, whereas HTC/Google's case must lose, shows that you assume Apple is always right.
Where did I claim either outcome?
How do you know HTC/Google's case has no merit instead?
Where did I say anything like this whatsoever?
If I am allowed to use the word 'steal' here like the legion of Apple fanboys emulating the RIAA...
It's the vernacular.
Maybe Apple actually STOLE from those new Google patents instead?
Maybe they did.
Wait a minute - you actually believe that Apple comes up with these great new designs and ideas and these evil other guys are blatantly "stealing" those wondrous innovations that no one except Apple could possibly come up with? Like the square design for a tablet?
Please tell me that's not what you believe.
It's not what I believe.
Why do you guys insist on making shit like this up?
Calling these patent infringements on either side "stealing" is flat out silly.
It's well-established that one can "steal" and idea.
Though if you want to call it that, then apple stole from google and HTC
Quite possibly.
apple started shooting first then google gave HTC a gun to start firing back
Only after Google stole from them. But that's not even what this thread is about. This thread is about Google's lie that they would never use a patent offensively. I'm really not bothered that Google is protecting their property. In fact, it's exactly the sort of thing they *should* do.
But I do care that they play a double-standard here and blatantly lie about it.
Right now in the mobile phone industry, EVERY possible conceivable invention, and several inconceivable ones are covered by multiple patents owned by multiple different companies. The only way to defend in the industry is to respond back, oh I'm infringing on 4 of your patents, oh yeah well your infringing on 4 of mine also, we both break even with just a few billion down the drain in lawyer fees, any company must either do that, or just say oh my bad I'll stop selling phones. Just flat out dropping out isn't an option, they are in it way to deep, so all that can be done is to assist the companies making their phones by preventing them from getting steamrolled.
Except that's exactly *NOT* what's going on here.
With Apple trying to ban any product that is seen as a threat, via their patents, now the opposition are teaming up; what if Apple's tactics turn against them?
;)
If the "tablet patent' Apple is using to try and ban the Samsung devices is overturned, and it should be (the prior art discussions here are evidence enough), the door will be open to the original IP holders, in this case most of the companies are represented in this "opposition".
I'm wonder when IBM will play its trump card and join the ranks? Or Microsoft even...
What if the iPad was banned for the same reasons Apple are trying to ban the Samsung devices?
Or that Apple's uncompetitive practices initiated a structural separation of the company?
Or that the monopolise they have built in the music, games and video industries via iTunes where opened to the competition?
And lets not mention the lobbying...
Apple has been playing a dangerous game for a long time, it's only a matter of time before the "competition" will have had enough.
We'll just have to wait and see where this one leads.
So..?
You've already basically admitted that someone can and has challenged Google, so it's easy to reiterate that no one is forcing anyone to use Google. Bing is actually a very good search engine and if someone detested Google so much that they refuse to search through it; there are completely viable alternatives.
So if you agree that Apple may have violated those patents, what's the issue? Google has just as much right to stand up for its property as Apple does.
At some point these industry giants will all be brought to their knees more-or-less simultaneously at which time they'll form some sort of community and demand that the USA "fix" it. They're bound and determined to fight this to a standstill.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
So it's ridiculous to make one the good guy and the other the villain.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Because of their history of stealing other peoples work and calling it their own; where as Apple comes up with original designs
Fixed it for you.
FAIL "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." -Steve Jobs
FAIL "Good artists copy; great artists steal." -Steve Jobs
Do i seriously have to break it down for you or are you just cynical? If you write code that has similar functions to Apple and Microsoft then you will get sued for patents. Microsoft and Apple has demonstrated that. Anyone that sues over software patents is in effect claiming ownership of someone else's code. In other words if you write code that does an action that they have patented then you will (1) get banned from the marketplace or (2) have to pay for a software patent license to use the code you wrote. Or at the very least distribute it. That is claiming ownership of someone else's code. Look Microsoft is charging numerous vendors license fees for using Linux on their devices. See Buffalo, Tom Tom, Amazon, Barnes and Noble (they are fighting it), and many others. Because they claim Linux violates the precious software patents. Microsoft says that those who are using Linux are "running on an undisclosed balance sheet". There are countless examples of these egregious activities by Apple and Microsoft in the marketplace.
+1 insightful
Sure, right now both have patents on various tech that the other is accused of violating. I don't feel either are the "bad" side, though I have to admit I'm biased against what Apple claims in their patent. I have no idea what HTCs new patents are though so they could be as equally ridiculous to me as Apples feels.
Really right now I'm just appalled how people seem to think Apple has a right to defend their patents, but HTC/Google isn't.
Obvious troll is obvious troll.
Though if you want to call it that, then apple stole from google and HTC
Quite possibly.
apple started shooting first then google gave HTC a gun to start firing back
Only after Google stole from them. But that's not even what this thread is about. This thread is about Google's lie that they would never use a patent offensively. I'm really not bothered that Google is protecting their property. In fact, it's exactly the sort of thing they *should* do. But I do care that they play a double-standard here and blatantly lie about it.
Interesting that you say Apple only POSSIBLY STOLE and yet Google STOLE... has anything gone through courts yet?
If Apple did steal, didn't they steal first?
Are you also concerned about the double standards that Apple is displaying? e.g.:
"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." -Steve Jobs
"Good artists copy; great artists steal." -Steve Jobs
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but you sure come across like you have an Apple bias.
Apple has some great products but also have some questionable habits (imo). Google is fighting back with patents as they should, I suspect they would prefer they didn't have to so if they now come out and say "we will use our patents to defend our products", would that make you happy? No, I don't believe Google is perfect and I do not believe they are still living up to "do no evil".
To quote you: You work within the system you have, not the system you wish you had.
That is precisely what Google is now doing.
BM3
Google do appear to want to tackle the situation on their own terms, and appear rather embarrassed to be getting involved with patents at all.
This thread is about Google's lie that they would never use a patent offensively.
Okay. So we have to agree. Google is starting to act as shitty and unethical as Apple and Microsoft customarily do.
No, I think very little of Apple and its management but even I trust that Apple knows this.
Why do you imagine Apple cares what you think?
Android is growing in popularity, Iphone has been stagnant over the last year
Selling as many as you can make is anything but stagnant. And iOS is still ahead of Android in marketshare when you include all iOS devices - yet another vector you refuse to consider but is indicative of anything but Apple being stagnant. You can't simply cherry pick which market segment to consider.
Apple has never been able to cope with competition
Becoming larger (in market cap) than any other mobile handset maker, and bigger than Microsoft to boot, coming into the middle of a cutthroat mobile business and handing everyone their asses - all of these things in fact shows not only that Apple can compete against one or many companies, but that few other single companies are capable of really competing against Apple. It takes a consortium like Google and the mass of Android handset makers to even try.
This isn't simply Apple taking it's ball and going home, they want Samsung's bat too.
All they are asking is Samsung to stop making devices that look EXACTLY like the equivalent Apple devices. And they appear to have enough of a case that a few courts agree, which means your assertion has been tested and failed in a court of law.
At best, this is a ruse to keep stock holders from figuring out that Apple has peaked.
Oh really. Well try shorting them then. I think Apple has just gotten started and recently bought even more stock. You truly have no idea what is about to happen, do you?
The reality is there are easily multiple places in the mobile market. The other reality is that very soon Windows Mobile 7 is going to start eating up Android marketshare.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They're probably trying to coax a few details out of you. You can resolve it so easy by just telling us:
What are a few examples of the patented features that Apple is claiming they 'own' that you forthrightly would agree they 'own?' Give the folks here an idea what ground you stand on. It doesn't have to be a huge amount of detail. What does Apple have the right to that the other companies are 'stealing?'
The last time Apple tried this crap, in the touch-and-feel era when they sued Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard (for their NewWave object-oriented desktop which ran on top of Windows 3) they were ultimately thrown out of court. We're trying to make sure they don't pull that same sort of obstructionist crap again.
This all started because Google decided they needed to crush iOS by giving away Android for free.
I'm sorry, I guess I missed the part where Apple was trying to sell iOS to other manufacturers.
People still need to _buy_ hardware before there is any competition here.
Are you _really_ suggesting apple should have the right to all things touch screen and square with rounded edges?
No, and no one else is suggesting this either.
And yet those are the patents that Apple is using to keep Samsung from selling tablets in Germany and Australia, and I believe the ones they're also throwing at HTC. The very system you are defending is the one you now deny.
Now we'll have to see how successful it'll be, but if it does well, Apple is in trouble. Not going out of business in trouble, but in trouble in terms of losing their vast profits. Apple has been going all in with iOS since that is where their massive growth has been, but tablets are the last move they have, they don't have anything to follow it with. They've got phones and tablets and that is it for now, and who knows if there is anything else they could even find a market for.
If Android gobbles up a good share of that, they are hurting badly. So they are lashing out to try and stop it.
Yeah, and if Apple wasn't infringing like their lives depended on it they wouldn't be counter sued. Again, welcome to the patent system, where everyone infringes and only MAD keeps things somewhat sane. Until it doesn't.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
They're defending themselves, as they should.
Interesting that you say Apple only POSSIBLY STOLE and yet Google STOLE... has anything gone through courts yet?
Because I haven't seen the Google patents HTC paid for in this discussion.
Are you also concerned about the double standards that Apple is displaying? e.g.:
"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." -Steve Jobs
"Good artists copy; great artists steal." -Steve Jobs
-Picasso
Jobs (and Picasso) are using the word "steal" in a different manner here. But they are also honest about their actions.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but you sure come across like you have an Apple bias.
I do like Apple and their products.
Google is fighting back with patents as they should, I suspect they would prefer they didn't have to so if they now come out and say "we will use our patents to defend our products", would that make you happy?
If they said they would use patents to protect their products *and* they quit trying to play the patent victim card, all hypocrisy would be absolved.
No, I don't believe Google is perfect and I do not believe they are still living up to "do no evil".
The first part is a straw man. No one is claiming Google or Apple are perfect. The second part is all but meaningless. "Evil" is a silly term to use, and not the basis for a reasonable general discussion about tech companies.
To quote you: You work within the system you have, not the system you wish you had.
That is precisely what Google is now doing.
And I have absolutely no problem with Google doing that. I just wish they would be honest about it.
If Google was serious about patent reform, why would they spend $12 billion to acquire Motorola Mobility to get their patents?
Huh, let me see, it could be because as long as the patent system is not reformed, and it is not, they have no choice but to do this?
Not sure if trolling ... or just thick.
This thread is about Google's lie that they would never use a patent offensively.
Okay. So we have to agree. Google is starting to act as shitty and unethical as Apple and Microsoft customarily do.
We don't agree. I don't think that protecting your property is unethical or shitty. And it's not like this is some new thing on Google's part, it's just a more blatant example that stands out in contrast to their recent public statements
“Google [... is] clearly on the losing track,” [said] Florian Mueller.
Each time we see this name in an article we can be sure that most of the article is bullshit.
Is Google Patents a new service from Google; similar to Google Earth or Google Toolbar?
Apparently, yes...
Ripping off the iPhone? HTC released their first touchscreen smartphone when Apple was selling a Firewire-only Ipod with a 20 gigabytes hard drive as their top product.
I still have got that particular phone model somewhere, last I've checked it still was working.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
They're probably trying to coax a few details out of you. You can resolve it so easy by just telling us:
And I have, countless times. But while you're probably right that he's trying to coax more details, starting from some invented point of view is not useful. And having to address it over and over again is tiresome.
What are a few examples of the patented features that Apple is claiming they 'own' that you forthrightly would agree they 'own?' Give the folks here an idea what ground you stand on. It doesn't have to be a huge amount of detail. What does Apple have the right to that the other companies are 'stealing?'
I shouldn't have to explain what is readily available online. But if you want an idea, just look at Android and smartphones pre-iPhone and post-iPhone. Look at tablets pre-iPad and post-iPad. Look at touch interaction pre-iOS and post-iOS.
People, like bhagwad, dishonestly misrepresent this as "Apple owns any rectangle with a touch screen" or other bullshit. There is no shortage of ways to design a rectangle with a screen. Most companies seem to have no problem with this except for Samsung.
The last time Apple tried this crap, in the touch-and-feel era when they sued Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard (for their NewWave object-oriented desktop which ran on top of Windows 3) they were ultimately thrown out of court. We're trying to make sure they don't pull that same sort of obstructionist crap again.
Your portrayal of history isn't terribly accurate. Apple's lawsuits weren't entirely dismissed. They did end up learning that copyright didn't apply to look and feel, which is why they are using patents now. The last of their lawsuits against MS were settled in 1997.
As for "this crap", Apple paid for the rights to Xerox's work, and expanded upon it themselves. Macintosh (and Lisa) were completely new ways of interacting with a computer. It's perfectly reasonable to think that Apple should have the rights to the fruits of their labor, and this isn't just "graphics and a pointer and windows", it's specific ways of interacting with these things, just as the Android lawsuits aren't about generalities like so many here seem to think, but about very specific ways of interacting. There are plenty of alternate ways available for Google to come up with.
But they don't. Google is the ultimate technology photocopier. They rarely come up with something new, they just rehash other people's work. Their only real innovation in their consumer products is that they make them free.
On the other hand, they are very innovative in their actual product, which is mining data and serving up ads.
I take it you never defend yourself when somebody attacks you. Mr. Darwin approves of that.
See the results in the EU courts, but Apples just files new ones.
Google didn't start this fight but I hope they win. They might not be good but they are the lesser evil.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
That link is deceptive since it ignores ipad like designs before the ipad and ignores the fact that the other form factors still exist. Here is a better example.
Well they never did in the past so no.
Oh wow. Apple gets more profit from their phone business than most of the other smartphone makers do combined, and you claim Google is "crushing" them with Android. Delusional idiot.
Yes Microsoft is evil. It may have had its wings clipped but there is no doubt that if it hadn't we might not even recognize the internet that exists today. And Apple is even more evil.
Congratulations... Nice Troll
7/10
I find it interesting that you need to claim that Google is suing despite the fact that they aren't. Facts do in fact invalidate your argument.
>"Your honor, my client never shot anyone before he bought that gun."
More like: "Your honor my client hates guns, has publicly spoken out against them and never owned one. When he was repeatedly shot at over the last few months, he finally bought one and started shooting back".
I am not sure I'm in favor of google getting the Motorolla patents - or any patents - but you should at least get your facts straight. Frankly in your OWN analogy - google is clearly a self-defense case.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>(stole another's property)
Have you READ the apple patents in question ? If implementing similiar tech in some android platforms is "stealing their property" then I'm robbing your house if I happen to paint mine the same color... and this while your house is white !
Oh lawdylawd ! Your house has doors! So does mine ! I must have stolen your whole brain !
Fucking idiot...
Btw. Ideas are not, nor should they be refered to as "property" and there is absolutely no basis in law for calling them that despite the fact that many lawyers do so - they do it to encourage people to think in a way that is utterly unsubstantiated exactly BECAUSE it's neither true nor sensible to MAKE true.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Put the 2003 and 2009 pre iPad ones in to the same position as the iPad, and I suspect the only major difference would be thickness.
That nokia deal is in the same vein as "embrace/extend/extinguish" so you have heard it. You just chose to ignore it's existence.
-- no sig today
IIRC google really didn't pursue patent justice until the whole mobile computing patent wars started and reached it's door. So I don't think it actually is fanboism.
They are a company with big means, so they obviously want to dominate everything. Defending the people who distribute your products is part of that idea.
On another note: I don't actually use google very much for anything. So I might be wrong
-- no sig today
You really aren't familiar with capitalism are you?
-- no sig today
Hate to break it too you, apple didn't invent touch screens they didn't invent phones, they didn't even invent tablets (star trek is proof of prior art).
I put a wings on a car and call it a flying car, the car was invented by someone and the plane was invented by someone else. If the guy who invented cars jumps up and down and says I stole his idea by definition I have to pay for that intellectual contribution this guy invested into my product, knowingly or unknowingly.
Apple has a lot of karma to pay - I'd say their market cap is under serious threat.... Hey wait where'd Steve go?
The reality is that *every tech company* that has done so, does not include google. Putting google and microsoft in the same category is a known microsoft shilling technique.
Well, Google stopped Microsoft, Apple and others from buying Novell patents by claiming that they were going to use these patents in lawsuits. And now Google has purchased Motorola and its patents and gives patents to HTC to use them in a lawsuit.
It's funny but Apple seemed to be quite a cool company for a while back there. Down with the kids so to speak.
Now, with all their litigation and garden-walling, they are starting to look more like the RIAA or MPAA. Say goodbye to the kids.
Can you cite one instance Just one where Google has used patents offensively?
So what is the sequence of events? The sequence of events isn't "Apple sues for patent infringement, Google gives HTC patents to countersue" which would be defensive. The sequence of events is "Apple builds a phone that revolutionizes the smart phone market, everybody including HTC tries to rip off Apple, Apple uses patents to defend against the ripping off, and Google gives HTC patents to countersue with the goal that they can continue to rip off Apple". That is offensive in every meaning of the word.
Which Samsung claims is so obvoius it was being used in the flim 2001, which must also explain why it was so generic that they had to wait until they were working with Apple to build Apple products before they suddenly started making tablets that looked like iPads, almost 45 years after 2001 came out. Interestingly other Android tablet builders (who didn't have access to Apple designs) seem perfectly capable of making tablets that don't look like iPads.
>Sounds like the defense of the Branch Davidians.
Your example is a case where there is so much inconsistency in reports that it's absolutely impossible to ever really figure out what happened ? Hell for all we know the BD's were telling the truth - I don't trust cultist religions (or any other religions) but I don't trust the FBI either.
Oh... and really your analogy is pretty damn flawed anyway. The BD's got in a shootout with the cops. By your analogy that makes Apple the federal government ? Nah, think of it more as a gangwar, and google is the dude who just happens to live in the neighbourhood and finally got sick of the crossfire hitting his kids.
I was rather more thinking of somebody in a bad neighbourhood who has been shot at and mugged repeatedly, eventually he buys a gun. Now an armed assailant breaks in through his back door yet again - and he shoots at him. Happens to kill him. There's barely a cop in the world who will even bother arrest the guy, because there's no honest judge in the world who would EVER convict you in such a clear-cut case of self defense.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Sure, that's why Google patented 'Seeing With Your Hand', 'Electronic Shipping Notifications' .Blocking advertising / Censorship of "Annoying" Content, and 'Systems and Methods for Enticing Users to Access a Web Site', not to mention many dozens of others - because they don't want to be involved with them.
Fandroids hate facts.
Dont ever hire an ex MS exec to be your ceo. Its a trojan horse.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Nobody could afford to try. Not even Microsoft.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The BD got in a shoot out with the ATF because they hoarded huge amounts of weapons "for self defense", allegedly including machine guns.
Fandroids hate facts.
Interesting that you say Apple only POSSIBLY STOLE and yet Google STOLE... has anything gone through courts yet?
Because I haven't seen the Google patents HTC paid for in this discussion.
So, there's been a court ruling on Apple's claim in Apple's favour?
Jobs (and Picasso) are using the word "steal" in a different manner here. But they are also honest about their actions.
Please explain .(btw, We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas is not Picasso) Being honest about stealing does not absolve stealing. Edible Apple is not a balanced source with this sort of topic but If we take the Edible Apple spin on the word steal, HTC would argue they have improved on the Apple products and are offering a better product - and I'm sure many would agree their products are better (just as many won't) which indicates a point of difference imo.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but you sure come across like you have an Apple bias
. I do like Apple and their products.
Liking Apple products and having a bias for Apple is different - I think some Apple products are great and I hope they keep producing great products, are you saying your comments are biased?
Google is fighting back with patents as they should, I suspect they would prefer they didn't have to so if they now come out and say "we will use our patents to defend our products", would that make you happy?
If they said they would use patents to protect their products *and* they quit trying to play the patent victim card, all hypocrisy would be absolved.
I believe ultimately, actions speak louder than words, Apple started sueing, Google rightly complained that it Apple is being disingenuous. Google bought Patents to fight back, Apple complained they being unfairly treated which is the way these games are played.
You were quite happy with Jobs saying steal and interpreting it in a more favourable light I notice, and now Apple is being accused of stealing (your word for these actions, not mine - I hope it is all thrown out and we continue getting better and better products, each "standing on the shoulders of giants" to paraphrase Newton... yes I know it was more than likely a barb at Hooke) it will be interesting to see the outcome of the court cases.
The first part is a straw man. No one is claiming Google or Apple are perfect. The second part is all but meaningless. "Evil" is a silly term to use, and not the basis for a reasonable general discussion about tech companies.
I didn't say you claimed anyone was perfect, I was trying to highlight that I believe Google also has faults. The "do no evil" bit is a reference to the Google policy and I stated that I do not think they are neccessarily living up to it these days, I also believe Google has done numerous great things.
BM3
apple started shooting first then google gave HTC a gun to start firing back.
Errm, HTC already shot back - twice in fact, then Google gave them more guns - yeah, purely defensive.
Fandroids hate facts.
Let me add a little bit to what's going on here. Florian has spun this as a "this is bad for google". Yes, that retarded florian mueller. From http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-07/htc-sues-apple-alleging-infringement-of-four-u-s-patents.html . Of course they have to use patents in a lawsuit. How else will they defend themselves? Google isn't suing anyone with these patents, but they are handing them out to folks like HTC to defend themselves (and thus android). They aren't going after folks. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the agreement from google to lend these patents to HTC is something like exactly that.
Meanwhile, guess what? Look at the groklaw debunk carefully.
>(stole another's property)
Have you READ the apple patents in question ? If implementing similiar tech in some android platforms is "stealing their property" then I'm robbing your house if I happen to paint mine the same color... and this while your house is white !
Ohh? http://www.engadget.com/2010/Patent
#7,633,076: Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity In Portable Devices
This was issued in October of 2009, and it's really quite specific: it covers a phone with multitouch input, a proximity sensor, and an ambient light sensor, which allows input when the sensors indicate one condition and doesn't allow input in others. In simple terms? It's how the iPhone shuts off the touchscreen when you hold it to your ear, a scenario that's specifically called out in the claims.03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-patent-breakdown/>
Yeah, that's an overly broad software patent if I ever saw one. Which you for some reason didn't while researching the patents. And I could give you more - but why don't you actually browse those patents yourself?
Fandroids hate facts.
APPL is peaking on a huge bubble right now. Every financial minded person I talk to is saying not to buy APPL stock ATM as the stock value is way out of sync with the companies actual production values (forget market cap, that is simply a corporate e-peen, we're talking actual numbers here).
No, if that were the case they would not be suing because the Galaxy Tab looks nothing like the Ipad in reality, they had to doctor evidence to support that flawed assertion.
Actually, they aren't.
Sorry to break it to you dear fanboy. I was in Singapore on Saturday, you could find an Iphone 4 everywhere but a Samsung Galaxy 2 was extremerly hard to find.
But growth is definitely stagnant and when your stock is based on gaining a higher price by gaining higher market share this is very bad indeed.
Your arguments are desperate and have no basis in reality. By all means, keep buying APPL stock, you seem to have no idea what is happening around you right now, let alone an inkling of what might happen in the future.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Crushing competitors is evil, but what's so evil about buying out the competition?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
>Yeah, that's an overly broad software patent if I ever saw one
"overly broad software patent" is a tautology, being a software patent makes it overly broad by definition. If it covers software that IS overly broad.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Mind you, with your bias so obviously displayed in your username... why am I bothering to even reply to you ?
You're obviously not going to try and have a reasonable debate because you'll never, ever consider the possibility that apple could be wrong about something.
Sorry - but if I pay for something, I demand the right to modify it as I see fit. I paid for my phone, and I'm very happy that I could modify it by putting cyanogenmod on it which is much nicer than sense. Tell me... where can I find a (legal, supported and approved of by the original company) custom mod of IOS for an iphone ?
Yeah... that's what I thought.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Google has access to tens of millions of viewers. They can change their logo and the talk around the office cooler is about an obscure Polish artist's 208th birthday
I'm not sure whether your office is much more interesting, or much, much duller than mine.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
One gun per person isn't a huge hoard of weapons. This was in Texas. And if the government was trying to arrest David Koresh they would have arrested him while he was jogging that morning. This was a huge government cockup and you are repeating falsehoods that protect the guilty.
pending committee review
You are an idiot.
which is totally what she said
So Google sold them to HTC - now HTC has them and can start fighting others - that they fight Apple might be good, but who's next? Samsung?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
The small robot will be crushed by the big fruit!
Seriously, Android is totally second tier. Android devices are for spec lovers, not for users. Every non-geek I know who has an android phone think it sucks compared to the iPhone. They didn't get an iPhone because it doesn't have a keyboard, or a bigger screen, etc. In the end, they have a crappy OS with crappy apps and a shitty user experience that they're not happy with. They'd exchange it if they could, but they can't.
If you want the Real Thing, get an iPhone or an iPad. If you want some crappy copy of the real thing, get an Android phone.
At least WebOS and Win7 phone tried to do something original.
Because of their history of operations, and the philosophy of the founders;
"Don't be evil"? Yeah, right. "Give the users what they want" - now that was a good idea when the users were people who wanted fast searching of the web, not so good when the users became paying customers who wanted effective advertising.
Fandroids hate facts.
So you do really think that Apple comes up with these great innovations which only they could have come up with and that others are blatantly trying to steal!
Mind you, with your bias so obviously displayed in your username... why am I bothering to even reply to you ?
Because you are an idiot - but that was a fact before you replied to me.
Fandroids hate facts.
>Yeah, that's an overly broad software patent if I ever saw one
"overly broad software patent" is a tautology, being a software patent makes it overly broad by definition. If it covers software that IS overly broad.
It doesn't cover software - did you read any of the patent description instead of just my ironic remark about it?
Fandroids hate facts.
Buying out competitors is "evil" because it reduces consumer choice in the market, which alters the supply/demand equation in favor of business. More market choice generally means lower prices.
"All they are asking is Samsung to stop making devices that look EXACTLY like the equivalent Apple devices"
Which ones would those be? I've got a Galaxy S2, which when I compare it to my GF's iPhone doesn't come anywhere NEAR an exact replica. Yes, it's a f*cking smartphone, so it's black with a full-sized touch-LCD. It's got a power button, mic jack, volume button, and a camera (also a front-facing camera, which my laptop had long before and iPhone did).
It's got a square'ish physical "home" button on the bottom, PLUS a touch-sensitive "back" and "menu" button.
In terms of interface, the stock lock screen had a background picture which you swipe to move off (not like iphone, which had a better lock IMHO). There's a menu bar at the bottom for common function buttons (this initially replaces the "physical" buttons present on my previous phones), and general icons above that. It has multiple desktop screens, which is just as much a clone of my Linux desktop as the iPhone.
Oh, and it has a removable battery, standard micro-USB charge port , and an SD card slot. Again, different from the iPhone and a significant part of the reason why I'm happier with the S2 than I was with my previous iPhone.
The first quote is out of context, and the second quote is Jobs quoting Picasso.
He's saying what we all know, creativity does not occur in a vacuum. But note specifically that he does not talk about stealing the ideas of other computer manufacturers. He's talking about taking ideas from music, poetry and art to make a better computer.
You are an idiot.
Excellent, a picture of a Samsung product that only looks like an iPad in one single picture, which happens to be the picture you used, of course, which came out in 2006 which was two years after Apple registered their design, which Samsung then went on to help them build. People didn't buy the iPad based on the Samsung Frame, but people did buy the Tab because of the iPad, or so Apples filling says, your mistake is thinking that I give a shit either way, simply because I can see the comedy and fact in what both sides are trying to say.
I don't like vague patents but I also think it's pretty clear that Samsung was trying to cash in on Apples success and that the Tab looks like an iPad, more so than I can say for any other tablet on the market.
And as much as Samsung want to protest otherwise, this looks nothing like an iPad.
Ask Homer.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Wrong, Mr. Fanboy. people like their own patents. I'd be willing to bet that Apple et al aren't loving those HTC/Google patents right about now.
Well, then what is Apple a misspelling for?
Apple regularly steals inventions from other companies and tries to lock it up for themselves. The iPod used a UI that was ripped off from Creative, those magsafe cords were ripped off from appliance manufacturers, and let's not forget about the original Macs where Apple ripped of Xerox for significant portions of the UI.
Of course they're trying to cash in on the success. People have been trying to crack the tablet market since the 90s. Apple were the first people to actually design a decent touch interface of course, but their hardware design isn't anything special.
which is totally what she said
Here's the problem with this argument: Google has never gone on the offensive with its patents because it *hasn't owned patents that it could go on the offensive with.*
Who were they going to sue with their search-related patents?
What's happening is, Google is trying to extend into other markets with Android. And they are not *innovators* in this space: they bought Android. They are not designing the hardware (which often tends to look like iPhone knockoffs). They are simply taking their software, dumping it into the market for free, and using that software to make sure that their services (and thus, advertising) are available on a broad array of mobile devices. In so doing, they are treading on the software patents other companies own, and catching a lot of heat for doing so.
Would it be great if all these companies sang Kumbaya and got along? Sure. But this insistence that somehow Google is the poor put-upon underdog because they have a hip logo on their web site is just stupid. Google is trying to expand into a new market where there are many established players already. They are appropriating ideas liberally from their competitors - and in at least some cases, appear to be doing so willfully - and now are catching heat for that. There is no "good guy" in this fight, and Google is not the scrappy underdog you're trying to hero-worship them into.
"sequence of events is "Apple builds a phone that revolutionizes the smart phone market, everybody including HTC tries to rip off Apple, Apple uses patents to defend against the ripping off, and Google gives HTC patents to countersue with the goal that they can continue to rip off Apple". That is offensive in every meaning of the word."
Nope. That's a defensive use from Google and offensive use from Apple. The fact that you _think_ that Apple "deserves" to be a monopolist has nothing to do with it.
I have a brilliant idea that I should have pasta for lunch today. So many thieves around, though, and I didn't even voice it yet!
Most of Google's partners are established players in the mobile marketplace. Apple was a late comer to the market. The iPhone is a great product, but it was not the first smartphone; Apple simply integrated and packaged existing technology better than most of the competitors. What Apple is trying to do, is to eek out some small space of "innovation" in all of the borrowed or cross licensed technology in the iPhone and use it to suppress competition. So far, what they have come up with as innovative, game changing iPhone technology are things like rounded corners, rectangles, specific gestures and possibly multi-touch.
If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
I said that was the intent. While there's a lot of Android phones out there, vendors' profits are still in the toilet. With the software commoditized they're left competing on hardware but as Apple still has a lock on the high end other vendors are in a race to the bottom there too with ever diminishing margins. It's a crappy business to be in at the moment for anyone but Apple. That's irrelevant to Google though, they have achieved their objective of vastly reducing the impact of iOS stopping the use of Google's services.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
You're posting as if Nokia's suit didn't happen.
"sequence of events is "Apple builds a phone that revolutionizes the smart phone market, everybody including HTC tries to rip off Apple, Apple uses patents to defend against the ripping off, and Google gives HTC patents to countersue with the goal that they can continue to rip off Apple". That is offensive in every meaning of the word."
Nope. That's a defensive use from Google and offensive use from Apple. The fact that you _think_ that Apple "deserves" to be a monopolist has nothing to do with it.
I thought it was "Apple copies a bunch of smart ideas from other companies and markets well, finally allowing phones that have already been in production prior to sell, other people ramp up production as the market shifts, Apple sues companies that originally invented the technologies using bogus patents regarding shape or obvious extensions of existing patents those other companies already own, or regarding automatic syntax highlighting and linking to alternate functionality, to stifle competition, Google purchases a suite of patents that cover the technologies in question and allow affiliates to borrow them to defend themselves and counter-sue Apple."
However, I might have missed something somewhere. It's possible Apple actually had a good original idea in there somewhere -- those don't get as much press as all of the ridiculous patent claims being made and used in court.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
Interesting that you say Apple only POSSIBLY STOLE and yet Google STOLE... has anything gone through courts yet?
Because I haven't seen the Google patents HTC paid for in this discussion.
So without having seen the patents, you are certain that Google "stole" ? But even having seen the Apple patents Apple has only "possibly stole"?
Wow! Have they promoted you to , at least , Senior Apple Shill ?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
And maybe Apple will win this one too, but Apple has to be pretty concerned that a suite of technology patents that could basically screw it over far bigger than rectangular screens may be about to bite. In other words, Apple might win this battle, and end up losing the war. Or, possibly, the courts will decide that tablet designs predate the iPad and that Apple has no case, so Apple loses the battle and loses the war.
If you were Apple, and you were about to have Motorola's substantial wireless portfolio smashed into you like a ton of bricks, how much do you think a patent on a rectangular touch screen device with rounded edges is worth even if a court lets it pass muster?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Then isn't the company getting bought at least equally evil?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
It's fashionable on Slashdot to belittle Apple's patents ("They've just patented a rectangle",etc.) but they've got an extensive portfolio going back some 20 odd years, the financial clout to buy access to more like they did with the Nortel patents and the contacts around the industry to set up cross-licensing deals to help them. And remember that Apple was actually already in a patent dispute with Motorola before Google acquired Motorola Mobility and there was no panic about that anywhere so by themselves those patents may not have a big impact, maybe taken together with another portfolio they may provide an edge but that remains to be seen.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Nobody comes out of this looking like the "good guys".
Your opinion, not mine.
...
The net result of this fiasco will probably be a cross-licensing agreement and a bunch of rich lawyers. (I don't begrudge the lawyers anything, btw... everyone's gotta make a buck)
Very true, even the mercenaries and crack dealers. Oh wait, there are moral and ethical limits.
alright then. Good talk
Why would they not do it directly, do you suppose? It isn't that 'convenient'
There is no evil in companies. There's company goals, and corrupt managers.
I am not devoid of humor.
They MONOPOLIZE the search industry
All of my freinds agree with me and we have all switched to bing for searching
Monopoly
monopoly, market condition in which there is only one seller of a certain commodity
from
http://m.dictionary.com/r/?q=Monopoly
The mere fact that you can switch to Bing means Google isn't a monopoly.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
So you do really think that Apple comes up with these great innovations
Um, yes, they actually *do* come up with their ideas.
Which is a rather ironic argument on your part, given that the patent in question is one that HTC bought from Google that they bought from someone else.
which only they could have come up with
No, I don't think they are the only people capable of coming up with their ideas. They are, however, the ones that did come up with them.
and that others are blatantly trying to steal!
In the case of Samsung and Google, absolutely. These two companies are blatant thieves. Samsung copies Apple hardware design so consistently that it would seem they have a whole department solely tasked with doing just that, and Google steals from whoever they need to in order to put out a product, like they did with Sun's Java and Apple's multitouch iOS.