Slashdot Mirror
In UK, HTC Defeats Apple's "Obvious" Slide Unlock Patent
An anonymous reader writes "In a move that is likely to have wide-ranging implications for patent rulings around the world, a High Court Judge in the UK has ruled that HTC did not infringe on a number if Apple's patents. 'He said Apple's slide-to-unlock feature was an "obvious" development in the light of a similar function on an earlier Swedish handset.' Two other patents that Apple had claimed were infringed were ruled invalid, while a third was found not to apply to HTC. A statement from the Taiwanese firm said: 'HTC is pleased with the ruling, which provides further confirmation that Apple's claims against HTC are without merit. We remain disappointed that Apple continues to favour competition in the courtroom over competition in the marketplace.' Apple declined to comment on the specifics of the case. Instead it re-issued an earlier statement, saying: 'We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.'" This after a similar victory for HTC in a different venue, when Apple's request for an injunction on some HTC devices was rejected in the U.S.
Yesterday's discussion
Since apple tried to sue then with a bs patent they must be seen as a threat. This suit is nothing more then a stall tactic by apple to hopefully get a ban on import of HTC device even for a week or a month its a win for apple if that happened
Just end all software or method patents?
This is the problem and until it is fixed more of this sillyness will happen.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Heck with competing with apple, they cant compete with samsung.
After the past 2 years with an android phone, if it's not a unlocked nexus from google, it's a crap android phone. But samsung's latest quad core godliness may change my mind.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
So what is HTC doing right that Samsung is doing wrong?
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Apple is not nearly as innovative as the fanboyz think. Apple just protecting it's IP? Apple is stealing the IP from Android.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-ios-5-copied-android-2012-5#notifications-appear-at-a-bar-at-the-top-1
There was really no downside for Apple to sue with a legitimately granted patent. No bs to it.
And it isn't about HTC being 'a threat' any more than any other manufacturer. The presence of other copycat smartphones in the market could erode Apple's margin on iPhone, and they want to protect those margins.
What is this, DeviantArt?
Would you like to have 1% of a billion dollars?
You should work out that math.
Good to know that completely ridiculous patent claims aren't being upheld.
Apple doesn't understand the meaning of "copycat" at least not in the sense of when they do/did it.
Younger Steve Jobs understood the importance of copycats in the market place... too bad older and now dead Steve no longer understand it. No matter. It will all result in something good for the market eventually and Apple will exhaust the patience of the judiciary of all nations and eventually win some legislation and perhaps some patent reforms around the world to prevent "everyone" from doing what Apple is doing.
The thing that will erode Apple's margin is when users realize they get the same sweatshop hardware for 10x the price from them.
'We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.'"
"We think competition is healthy, but competitors should not notice that the technology they created, we've stolen and patented as our own."
What exactly in the iPhone is new or novel? Everything done in it has been done in other phones before it, all they did was package up everyone else's innovations make it pretty and slap a logo on it and claim they invented the phone market. Slide to unlock was as obvious as it gets when your dealing with a touch screen. How would you propose you unlock a smart phone?
I guess they need to listen to their same line of not stealing others tech, because that's precisely what they did when they made the iPhone.
Well considering apple has been in courts saying they couldn't compete with Samsung if the courts didn't grant the injunction against the galaxy tab back in 2011...
Samsung is the big dog on the block, and apple is afraid.
Good ruling. Here are some other slide-to-unlock devices which have been around for a while.
Proverbs 21:19
They made everything better. AND they sold the Sizzle, not the steak.
This is what the haters will never understand. All they see is 6oz bacon wrapped Filet, and say "I could do that cheaper" after looking at the $60 price tag. But what they mean is they can do a 12 oz Flank Steak on a BBQ for $6. It isn't the same.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
How is this submission materially any different than the similar one yesterday?
Do we really need to rehash this all over again?
Doesn't anyone moderate the submissions here? Were they all sick yesterday and didn't notice this exact same thing yesterday?
C'mon, let's stop regurgitating here, 'kay?
I'm a patent geek. Patent attorney, undergrad in Comp Sci, and working in-house at a software company. Of course my view somewhat differs from the vitriolic responses of most commenters on here.
Nevertheless, I enjoy the patent stories.
While I will concede the point they sold the sizzle and not the steak (brilliant phrasing BTW), I don't necessarily agree with the point that the iPhone is the fillet. In light of the fact that their hardware has always been near the middle of the pack in the market but their price points have always been near the top I think they are selling flank and calling it fillet.
I got here through a series of tubes
No problem with being the best at something and trying to sell it for more, that is called healthy competition. The problem is Apple is trying to put the Flank Steak people out of business by saying that they are the only ones who should be allowed to BBQ. They are saying that the invented the beef and the bbq and no one else should be able to do this. Just because you are good at perfecting something, doesn't mean you should take credit for inventing something and claim broadly that no one else should be able to make any product remotely similiar to yours.
Why do we have to go over the 'nothing about iPhone was new' thing, in every iPhone story?
No one who used smartphones prior to iPhone can possibly take you seriously. By comparison all of the sucked unequivocally. They all had lousy battery life, or lousy interfaces, or lousy web browsers, or lousy processors, or no music player, or a music player with a lousy way to buy music, or no maps, or pay for maps, or spoken menu voice mail, or lousy button layouts, or they were too large, or had lousy screens, or idiotic ways to put the thing on silent, or were stuffed with carrier bundled junk software, or they broke easily, or their voice quality was awful, or they felt like they were made by Fisher Price, or any combination of these or a host of other details. There is absolutely nothing wrong with cherry picking the best bits of existing technology and putting them together to make a better product. And nothing wrong with making that product aesthetically pleasing and putting your company's logo on it.
And yes, they did invent the consumer smartphone market. Delude yourself all you like that everyone is stupider than you and just buy the thing because an ad told them to, But you and your like minded friends and every other smartphone manunfacturer had exactly the same opportunity to do exactly what Apple did, and you did not. That you are mad about that now doesn't take anything away from Apple's accomplishment, at least not among rational people.
As for slide to unlock, what phones had slide to unlock prior to iPhone? I don't blame Apple a bit for going after everything governments would give them, in terms of locking out competitors. After all, they exist to make as much money as they can. Unlike you I don't operate under the impression I'm friends with any for profit corporations, or that they make phones because I need a phone. They make them because they can make money off my needing one.
The elephant in the room is the belief that competition is "healthy". It's only "healthy" in the same way as killing your enemies and dragging their virgins back to your cave is "healthy", i.e. a primitive, antisocial manifestation of "might makes right" which we only continue to entertain because it keeps a few friends at the top powerful as long as everyone else at the bottom continues fighting each other.
a car analogy to counter.
nobody but ferrari can make a ferrari..
but pininfarina still made the nicest designs and some of the nicest were done for alfa romeo and all italians have the same shit electronics bought from the same shit suppliers.
apple has sold others parts as their own inventions ever since 6502, only sprinkled with "magic" and claiming that anyone who buys the same parts from the same outside inventors/manufacturers is a stealer.
your steak analogy isn't that good either because it would have to be a 120$ steak served on a silver platter while the restaurant next door had filet mignon with bacon for 60$- only done properly(not wrapped) and with sauce of your choosing and fries instead of pickled dicks.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Apple should have gone with the "They're a rectangle" thing. Wonder why they didn't. Maybe HTC isn't rectangle-y enough.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
And you can take a Fillet Steak, marinate it and cook it for around $8 and have it taste far better than the restaurant mass cooked crap that usually has no flavor. Your not really helping the argument with that.
The sizzle as you put it is flair, its glitter, its not innovation. Suing over that is like suing because someone else went to your Halloween party dressed as your favorite character from a shitty book or movie. As for better, what did they do better? I know on my iPad (yes, I have one, doesn't mean I still don't think apple is a shithole of a company that does more harm than good) I experience 10x the crashes than I do on my android tablet. I can watch flash on my android tablet. What is better about an apple device? I don't see any better. I see a reality distortion field and too many people are drinking from the apple kool-aid to realize how little that company has actually done.
OK. I've never owned an iPhone (I tend to like WiMo7 or Android a lot better), but iPhones tend to have upper end hardware - not the best out, but typically the phone with better hardware are rarely more than a couple months older than the iPhones - for when they are released, the iPhones do then to have upper end, though not quite bleeding-edge hardware.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
And now the Apple shills...
It's a bullshit patent. In a proper patent system, the patent would never have been granted.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Selling the sizzle usually indicates that the product isn't really significantly better - you just generate hype about it. So, I'd agree with that part of your statement.
As far as comparing types of steak - it's more like a 6oz bacon wrapped fillet from Apple for $60, while the high end competition offers 5-7 ounce fillets for $40-$50, just usually with marginally less bacon. If you really like bacon, then the Apple might be fore you - but otherwise, it's probably not worth the hype (sizzle).
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Not only is this a dupe of another article on the front page, the summary quotes the same BBC article. Doesn't Slashdot have a system for at least checking the URLs of submitted stories?
"A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
1. no, they did not invent the consumer smartphone market. It existed (at least in Europe) long before the iPhone.
2. I had a phone that had "slide to unlock" before the iPhone existed. Admittedly I slid the phone open, rather than my finger across a screen. The principle is the same though.
3. I had a phone that had pretty much all the iPhone did before the iPhone existed. The interface *was* a bit suck-y though. Note, that means Apple did not invent anything, they just had good design. Not the same thing at all.
To summarise, Apple make nicely designed products, and are great at UI and user experience. Some people seem to think that makes their product more innovative than it is and refuse to see that it's just another product, one that stands on the shoulders of giants.
I'm sure they differ, as you are about to become part of the problem.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is obviously an issue near and dear to your heart so I cordially took the time to read your entire rant waiting for the part where you would explain what Apple had actually invented rather than a list of simple iterations on the hard work put forth by others previous to them.
Thanks for nothing, man.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
When the patents are garbage and impact tech, it's appropriate.
Except in the US. Elsewhere there are minimum requirements, if the patent fails one of these requirements, it is not patentable.
Your steak analogy is bad. You can easily make steaks just as good as some overpriced $60 restaurant steak, and even better, if you know how to cook steak (it's not that hard), and buy a quality steak, and you can do it for a fraction of the price. The key is, that $60 isn't just buying you a steak, it's buying 1) the labor to cook it (plus a guarantee that it's to your liking, if you screw up your own steak you're outta luck, but the restaurant will take back a bad one and redo or replace it), and 2) the restaurant experience: someone waiting on you hand and foot, a nice building and interior atmosphere, etc. You can make food at home that's better than some expensive restaurant, but you won't get any service, you have to spend time doing it yourself, you need to know how to cook yourself (lots of people can't cook worth shit, others can only cook certain types of foods well so they'll go to restaurants for the types of foods they're not good at), etc.
As far as I can tell here, we're not talking about making your own phones at home DIY-style, we're talking about other major companies making competing phones. To use your restaurant analogy, that's like saying it's impossible for someone else to start up a new steakhouse restaurant as good as some existing steakhouse, and that's clearly stupid; anyone with sufficient capital and a good chef can set up a steak restaurant just as good as a fine steakhouse. Similarly, there's nothing that special about Apple; another company of sufficient size and capitalization to hire skilled employees can do the same thing, and they have.
You seem to have a lot of anger. I will re-iterate.
1. Yes, they did.
2. Sliding a phone to unlock. The concept is the same.
3. Yes I did.
Sorry, I know this does not fit in with your world view, but sticking your head in the sand won't help.
When lawyers do stupid things, it's largely because they are paid to do them. They represent the interests of their clients in regard to legal issues. Client says "we own slide to unlock," the lawyers they pay find ways to make that stick.
This doesn't make me any more fond of the tactics they use in representing those interests, but it's important to realize that they aren't usually the driving force behind it.
People like that nozzle Carreon notwithstanding....
Ad luna, Alicia! Ad luna!
Then again, the iPhone is the only one that still sucks after all those years...
Can't HTC counter sue over frivolous litigation?
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
They can't. Samsung is both manufacturer and software developer. Apple is just software, all of their manufacturing is outsourced.
Samsung is a -VERY- known quantity and has been playing in the electronics industry in far more areas than apple for a very long time in the high-end stuff. Even their low-end items however are very high quality, I have yet to own a samsung product that I can complain about beyond "I wish it had feature x" which is usually available on the model up Samsung product.
Every LCD or LED panel in my house right now is a Samsung panel. I'm not normally brand loyal but Samsung has been so good to me for so long that if Samsung has a product in category x I just buy that one.
The only exception for me is some appliances. You can't beat a Maytag.
I would imagine they would differ, it is hard to convince someone to act against their own pocketbook.
The big difference is he has probably read the patents, but that isn't a prerequisite for discussion around here. You can tell by the way everybody here thinks Apple has a patent on rounded rectangles. If he spoke up, he'd be chased out of here by a bunch of torches and pitchforks, plus a guy shouting 'lightning bolt!'
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like what is, um, patently common sense is starting to win out.
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
What exactly in the iPhone is new or novel? Everything done in it has been done in other phones before it, all they did was package up everyone else's innovations make it pretty and slap a logo on it and claim they invented the phone market.
Yep, that's why the iPhone sold like hotcakes and has been pretty much credited with jump starting the smart phone market, even at the supposed "premium" price for "substandard hardware" someone else claimed previously.
Slide to unlock was as obvious as it gets when your dealing with a touch screen. How would you propose you unlock a smart phone?
I guess they need to listen to their same line of not stealing others tech, because that's precisely what they did when they made the iPhone.
Yep, apparently everything in the iPhone was obvious, which is why so many different iPhone clones existed prior to the iPhone, since the smartphone market dates back more than a decade, and the iPhone was a late-comer.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
For an inhabitant of Scandinavia it is obvious, that days are shorter in December than in July.
For an inhabitant of Kenia 1Km north of the equator it is not (but still true).
For a European, this patent is obvious.
For an American, it is not.
Case closed, next please.
I can't know what "mass cooked" means, nor do I know what a Fillet Steak could be.
But if you've marinated beef and it ended up tasting better than what you've been served in restaurants, you've been going to the wrong restaurants.
I actually did read that patent and I am not sure how "patent on rounded rectangles" is not a decent summary. I even looked at the diagrams.
Please elaborate on what you think a simple summary of the pantent should include.
Pretty certain there was a "slide to unlock screen" motion in a few episodes of Babylon 5; I'm thinking of the communication terminal in Londo's quarters. That would be in 1993 or so.
That's all well and good, but you can't patent a bacon-wrapped fillet if the bacon and fillet have already been made by someone else. That is the point here.
Honestly, I'm surprised they didn't win the slide-lock case. As far as i can tell, they were the first company to have a broad distribution of phones that had that feature.
That being said, I'm glad they lost due to their recent success with other, more bullshit patent trolling, such as "Oh no, we patented a rounded rectangle with a single button, you can't make your phone like that."
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Buy an iPhone. Try to use it for a month. I assure you that you will reverse your opinion of the hardware.
Don't worry, we'll wait. Go ahead.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Shit electronics? I don't know about cars but I know for motorcycles Magneti Marelli makes world class ECUs. Bosch and other manufacturers can't compete in racing series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti_Marelli
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Maybe it's their way of subtly trolling the legislature for the good of the public?
It seems the only way to get this shit changed is by companies like Apple abusing it so badly that people actually wake up about it.
HTC is sticky, but pleased
While I will concede the point they sold the sizzle and not the steak (brilliant phrasing BTW)
Probably because the phrase is not original :).
Yep, that's why RIM, Nokia/Symbian, Windows Mobile, PalmOS are doing SO well these days. After all, the iPhone couldn't even compete against these smartphone heavyweights.
As for unlocking, let's see. Windows Mobile used either the keypad (hit Start, hit 9 I think). or tap the button marked "Unlock". Nokias were similer tap-to-unlock (touchscreen only - the ones with keypads you hit a key combo like menu for a couple of seconds or such).
And nothing out of Apple is innovative other than the packaging. An iPhone in 2007 did LESS than what a Symbian, WinMo, PalmOS, or Blackberry did back then. Just like an iPod in 2001 couldn't compete ("No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame"). Hell, we always awed Japanese phones for having the latest and greatest all crammed in there.
It just turns out packaging (and presentation) is actually much more important that people realize and laundry lists of features mean little (especially when items are implemented poorly, or definitions get stretched). (See aforementioned Japanese cellphones).
And yes, the same goes for Android. Even early versions of Android were still way better than than the smartphones that came before it (and iOS+Android basically pummelled them out of the market). Android was more "techy", up until ICS or so where Google really improved the UI significantly (haven't had a chance to try JB yet, but I'm told it's even better).
Apple used this tagline in advertising in the late 1990s, and now they are upset that companies are stealing their ideas? My irony meter is now pegged at max.
I suppose the natural end of the great patent war of the 2000s will be in the courtroom, as companies pay to have obvious patents overturned. When the cost of litigation to nullify patents is less than the lifetime cost of paying the license fees, all the large companies will be doing it.
Sorry, I beg to differ. I've waited eighteen months for an Android tablet that has pixel-perfect, smooth as butter scrolling, which iPhone has had for several years now.
As a developer who has worked on several marquee apps on iOS and Android, I've always been disappointed by Android. The small details matter.
"All they see is 6oz bacon wrapped Filet"
If that is your pinnacle for steaks, I suggest you don't comment further on any subject related to beef.
Samsung does make some high end Washers and dryers. But they are typically only found in homes that have walk in SubZero refrigerators.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
No, the point here is that they're claiming bacon-wrapped steaks are an easy jump to make, because before we obviously had bacon and we had steak. But, before Apple, people weren't wrapping steaks in bacon. Maybe other things in bacon, or wrapping steaks in other things, but not this particular combination.
What Slashdot has, is a decent-size contingent of people who routinely solve problems. Think of us all, even the newbiest programmers, as full-time inventors and architects. No, I'm not saying we're in Tesla's league. If we had to be, then there wouldn't be much of a problem! But the low barrier to software creation, means that now many millions of people have to deal with the same bullshit (and contribute to the same bullshit) that only the well-financed "elites" a century ago could.
That's how awesome software is, and also how awful and archaic software patents are.
It used to be there were only a few active industrial geniuses, and for every hour they worked, the industry could afford ten lawyer hours to patent search everything they did. Now that's impossible, and ten hours of lawyer time per hour of tech time, isn't enough lawyer anymore anyway.
If you're a programmer or designer, then patents matter. And the fact that every hour of your job, you may be violating any numbers of patents, which you'll only find out about many years later if your work ever gets noticed, is a real problem. Patents aren't just some intellectual game that lawyers play, it's a thing they do where force is sometimes used against us, by our own government.
That makes patent stories appropriate. Especially stupid patents. Remember that even though HTC won, they had to spend money to defend themselves. Some day, it may be your innocent ass either spending money on defense, or closing your business because you can't afford "justice."
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I actually did read that patent and I am not sure how "patent on rounded rectangles" is not a decent summary. I even looked at the diagrams.
Please elaborate on what you think a simple summary of the pantent should include.
Seeing as how Apple doesn't actually have a patent on rounded rectangles I'm going to venture a guess that you ran across a story with a headline that says something like "Apple claims rounded rectangles!" and skimmed whatever they linked to, nodded your head, and went 'yup yup yup!' If I'm right, what you saw was a design patent that included a number of details about the particular non-functional shape of the device. Apple didn't sue Samsung because the Tab has rounded corners. They sued because Samsung copied twenty five details of the iPad, rounded-corners being one of them. It's a lawsuit over the sum of its parts.
You were mislead by a click-hungry site.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Or, God forbids, he knows how to cook well.
No shit. It was a great use of the phrase.
I got here through a series of tubes
There was really no downside for Apple to sue with a legitimately granted patent.
Legitimately granted?
Nowadays patents are not really examined properly at the time they are filed for, the patent office just says yes then starts taking your money. The downside only comes when you try and sue (which costs you a small fortune) and the patent is chucked in the bin for being obvious.
This also now has the other downside for Apple that HTC are now in the clear over these patents in the UK whereas before they are in a grey area where they could be infringing so it was a risk for them to bring a device to market that might have been prevented from being sold. Sometimes patents can actually be useful just as a threat rather than actually used as a weapon, now these patents cannot be held over anyone else either.
I dont read
Finally a judge who can see through the garbage that Apple is shilling. While I admit that Apple does make some pretty products, refinement does not equal invention, and this whole process of their aquiring patents they 'might' use, only to turn around and sue other companies who either did it first or did it also, is really not the earmarks of a company that people should be buying products from.
In other news, Apple patented an 'HMD', completely forgetting and ignoring that others have patented similar technologies long before them...like Xybernaut, which patented virtually the same device back in 1997. Not to mention all of those wearable displays put out like iGlasses, and whomever else was selling them on Ebay for like $80 a set (And you can plug them into your iPod!). When they can't innovate, they litigate, and where they can litigate, they subjugate. It's sad that they have resorted to this, considering their roots, but it would be nice if more judges like this saw through the Apple Reality Distortion Field and realized that if any other company was doing this, they'd be told to take a hike, and that Apple does not deserve special dispensation just because they're Apple.
Slashdot has a decent-sized contingent of law geeks.
Apple doesn't understand the meaning of "copycat" at least not in the sense of when they do/did it.
Younger Steve Jobs understood the importance of copycats in his business model.
There, fixed that for you. Much like young Bill Gates, young Steve Jobs liked to copy other peoples work but didn't like other people to copy the same work. Xerox Parc, CP/M, it does not matter what arrangements were figured out after the fact, both so called "visionaries" copied from real researchers.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
No one who used smartphones prior to iPhone can possibly take you seriously. By comparison all of the sucked unequivocally.
And Apple took all of that precedent learned from it and cleaned it up, and now therefore can tell everyone else they aren't allowed to take the iphone, learn from it, and and release a new product themselves? Say what now?
Its not like apple invented long battery life or good call quality. Lots of SmartPhones existed with that, they might otherwise have been crap, but the battery and or voice was good. Phones without carrier junk software? Hello Blackberry. Hello Windows Mobile 6. Lousy interfaces? Blackberry had a fine interface built around the clickwheel.
If you wanted to do an all touch interface, then the interface had to be designed for it, and it wasn't so much people copying apple, as people being forced to make many of the same design choices apple was because that's what makes sense for an all touch device.
And sure, as the other manufacturers went all touch, they followed the conventions that Apple had popularized (not invented) and that the market wanted.
As for slide to unlock, what phones had slide to unlock prior to iPhone?
According the article this thread is linked to the Neonode nM1 had a touch interface where you slide from left to right along the bottom of the touch screen to answer calls. Sound familiar?
As for all phones looking like a flat rounded rectangle? What other shape could they possibly have? The second the market shifted to smartphones that was inevitable. Form follows function. 10 years ago phones could be all different shapes... you had your round pod shaped ones, your flat Razrs, your long thin ones that slid, but the moment the smartphone became about the screen the shape of the phone becomes rounded rectangle to hold the screen... some had a phsysical keyboard along the bottom, some with a sliding keyboard, and some with no keyboard. (the iphone wasn't even the first all touch smartphone).
Now 5 years on, the market has shown a strong preference for the on-screen keyboard -- so that pretty much forces phones to be flat round rectangles with no keyboard.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with cherry picking the best bits of existing technology and putting them together to make a better product. And nothing wrong with making that product aesthetically pleasing and putting your company's logo on it.
Well, nothing wrong when apple does it. But apparently god forbid anybody else do it?
Alas, "broad distribution of phones" isn't one of the qualifiers to get a patent...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
They made everything better. AND they sold the Sizzle, not the steak.
This is exactly what we understand. Apple sold cheap flank steak from Mexico under the guise of it being USDA Prime wagu bred in Japan. They lied about the quality and the origins, to fit in with the analogy.
This is what the haters will never understand. All they see is 6oz bacon wrapped Filet, and say "I could do that cheaper" after looking at the $60 price tag. But what they mean is they can do a 12 oz Flank Steak on a BBQ for $6. It isn't the same.
See my sig about using the word "hater". All I see is a 150gm flank (sandwich) steak wrapped in bacon and thinking I could get a 300 gm Porterhouse with a nice peppercorn gravy for the same price. Thats how people view the iphone, as more people see through, as you put it "the sizzle and not the steak" the more people are going to see that the "sandwich" steak has been sold at Wagu prices.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
isn't that just a variant of the slide to unlock that holds in batteries on laptops?
On the contrary, patent and copyright law concerns almost all nerds. It's not the legalities themselves that interest us, it's how they affect our work and hobbies.
Being a nerd isn't buying tech, it's designing and building and repurposing and progremming tech. As such, patent law affects us greatly.
Free Martian Whores!
back when groklaw was in the process of nailing down that smoking crater you would find a lot of stories that jumped the Slashdot/Groklaw line. I think there is a decent sized number of Law geeks in these parts. (plus its a good think to be able to play "Another One Bites the Dust" in the software patent area.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
They made everything better. AND they sold the Sizzle, not the steak.
This is what the haters will never understand. All they see is 6oz bacon wrapped Filet, and say "I could do that cheaper" after looking at the $60 price tag. But what they mean is they can do a 12 oz Flank Steak on a BBQ for $6. It isn't the same.
So they cut the filet into 12 pieces and wrapped it in plastic. I don't see how they can patent this since the product is still the same.
What exactly in the iPhone is new or novel? Everything done in it has been done in other phones before it, all they did was package up everyone else's innovations make it pretty and slap a logo on it and claim they invented the phone market.
Yep, that's why the iPhone sold like hotcakes and has been pretty much credited with jump starting the smart phone market, even at the supposed "premium" price for "substandard hardware" someone else claimed previously.
Slide to unlock was as obvious as it gets when your dealing with a touch screen. How would you propose you unlock a smart phone?
I guess they need to listen to their same line of not stealing others tech, because that's precisely what they did when they made the iPhone.
Yep, apparently everything in the iPhone was obvious, which is why so many different iPhone clones existed prior to the iPhone, since the smartphone market dates back more than a decade, and the iPhone was a late-comer.
Because a touchscreen with a slide unlock is so ground breaking... Blackberry's were extremely popular and became a government standard years after the iPhone was released on the market. The only reason the iPhone truly took off was because it integrated with iTunes which had major success. All the other features were no more ground breaking than any phone. They found something that stuck and went with it.
Since patent laws threaten our livelihoods, our hobbies and our bank accounts, I think it's perfectly appropriate to have these stories on /.
If you don't like them, why did you not only keep reading, but actually waste time posting?
No, I read the design patent. Its biggest design feature seems to be the rounded corners. I am not sure how they even qualify as non-functional. Sharp corners would be uncomfortable to hold.
Shit electronics? I don't know about cars but I know for motorcycles Magneti Marelli makes world class ECUs. Bosch and other manufacturers can't compete in racing series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti_Marelli
it's a stereotype, jokes are funnier that way. afaik there used to be a time when it wasn't that unusual that they'd refuse to start on a damp day and so forth. and car manufacturers quite often don't manufacture the electronics parts, kind how it's extremely rare for a consumer electronics company nowadays to manufacture any of the parts that make up the device.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I cooked in a high end restaurant for 3 years, you would be shocked at the shitty quality of the crap they serve people and slap a massive price tag on. We had profit margins in the range of 300% on our least profitable item and consistently got 5 star ratings.
Marinating beef adds in a flavor that your aged steaks can't obtain, you just need to know what and how to marinate it.
Because a touchscreen with a slide unlock is so ground breaking... Blackberry's were extremely popular and became a government standard years after the iPhone was released on the market. The only reason the iPhone truly took off was because it integrated with iTunes which had major success. All the other features were no more ground breaking than any phone. They found something that stuck and went with it.
A) they found a plethora of phones with a slide to unlock feature prior to the iPhone?
B) touchscreens were common prior to the iPhone?
C) phones without keyboards were common prior to the iPhone?
D) Blackberry's came into being years after the iPhone?
E) the iPhone integrated with iTunes when it came out?
The answer to each of those is "No" btw, and I'm actually trying to recall when phones got cameras, I'm pretty sure that was prior to the iPhone, but front facing and video calling were iPhone firsts, I think. Also, IIRC, BES came into being quit a bit before the iPhone was released, and was one of the reasons BB was at the top of the smart phone heap.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Then let iPhone conquer in the market place if it's so much better than the competition. How greatthe iPhone supposedly is has no relevance regarding rule of law.
Former iPhone user since first version, now happy with HTC. IPhone was good enough, but not worth the walled garden approach, not worth rooting and certainly not worth a government-granted monopoly,
Don't give them that much credit; these aren't shills. Apple doesn't need to pay people for this pathetic white-knighting. These are honest-to-goodness deluded fanbois who can't stand that a critical thing is ever said about their sacred cow.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
it is hard to convince someone to act against their own pocketbook.
Nah, not really. Just convince someone that they're "rich" and then tell them that they're coming after the rich with tax increases.
I had someone argue with me about tax increases on the rich because they were genuinely concerned that they were going to see their own taxes rise. This person and her husband made roughly $120k/year combined. It was pretty clear that she just wanted to believe that she was rich.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
The answer to each of those is "No" btw, and I'm actually trying to recall when phones got cameras, I'm pretty sure that was prior to the iPhone, but front facing and video calling were iPhone firsts, I think. Also, IIRC, BES came into being quit a bit before the iPhone was released, and was one of the reasons BB was at the top of the smart phone heap.
A quick check on google indicates that cameras were being added to phones in the 90s and according to the Apple site the iPhone 3GS didn't have a front facing camera; which means my Nokia N70 (released in 2005) clearly beat Apple to video calling and I know that it wasn't the first.
A game has objectives and is competitive, anything else is just play
Kyocera VP-210 (1999), one of the first (if not the first) commercial cellular phones to offer video calling. Then we enter the 3G network era with the Sony Ericsson Z1010 (2003) and the NEC e606 (far right, 2003);
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
That rounded corners patent is pretty much "rounded corners on a device with a bezel around the screen and a button on the front".
it seriously was just a basic description of what anyone would make if they were going to make a tablet.
Round corners = not scratchy
Bezel around screen = have to because the screen electronics exceed the screen-space
button on the front = about the only thing that is some-what optional. but its a fucking button!
What do you think about this.
US20120036556
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2012/0036556.html
http://www.google.com/patents/US20120036556
Except it only applies to the Galaxy Tab. There's a reason the number 25 is important.
The small details matter.
Yes, they do to consumers of expensive electrical gadgets, you're quite right. It's like you used to find when people still bought big hi fi systems for their home. A funky flashing LED display got more sales than having a good amplifier or speakers.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Buy an iPhone. Try to use it for a month. I assure you that you will reverse your opinion of the hardware.
Don't worry, we'll wait. Go ahead.
Try using one for a year. In fact, you won't be able to because it will break, unless you enclose it in an armoured case and never let it leave your house.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
a car analogy to counter.
nobody but ferrari can make a ferrari..
But if I could design and build a more or less identical car with a different badge for half the cost I should be allowed to sell it and let buyers decide whether the Ferrari was worth the extra money.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I always find it amusing that peple will pay a top whack for a fillet steak then have to drown it in a strong blue cheese sauce or something to give it any flavour.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
A lot of the time you're paying extra money so that you can say you have had your steak in fashionable Restaurant X.
Which is exactly the same reason that people will buy a laptop, tablet or phone with the Apple logo on and happily pay 50% more for it than it's worth. (Or pay two hundred quid for a pair of jeans with some designer's name on).
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"All they see is 6oz bacon wrapped Filet"
If that is your pinnacle for steaks, I suggest you don't comment further on any subject related to beef.
Yeah, if it ain't at least 32 oz it's a fucking bar snack, not a steak.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
No one who used smartphones prior to iPhone
and then you say
And yes, they did invent the consumer smartphone market.
Something doesn't make sense there.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Its not like apple invented long battery life
You say that as though iPhones have great battery life compared to other phones. They don't.
You shouldn't let Apple fanboys get away with assertions like "Apple invented the first smartphone with good battery life" because they certainly fucking haven't yet. As with Android phones, you have to recharge them once a day.
And the reason is that Apple uses the same technology as everyone else, they don't have some magic new battery technology they've invented.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
even at the supposed "premium" price
It's not a supposed premium, iPhones are fucking expensive. The fact that Samsung and HTC appear to want to match their prices just means that they're going for the fucking expensive market too.
Five hundred quid for a toy is just taking the piss. And yes, I know that people on slashdot use their iPhones to control vast supercomputer clusters and co-ordinate interplanetary rocket laucnhes.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The only reason the iPhone truly took off was because it integrated with iTunes which had major success
To be fair to Apple (which doesn't come easily) their app store idea helped a lot too. It had never been so easy for non-technically minded people to download and install programs.
Prior to the iPhone, people tended to stick to the one or two crappy games pre-installed on their phone, for instance, and you never got anything like the Angry Birds phenomenon.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Don't give them that much credit; these aren't shills. Apple doesn't need to pay people for this pathetic white-knighting. These are honest-to-goodness deluded fanbois who can't stand that a critical thing is ever said about their sacred cow.
--Jeremy
The worst lies are the ones you believe are true.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Samsung does make some high end Washers and dryers. But they are typically only found in homes that have walk in SubZero refrigerators.
The idea of a walk in refrigerator is about as appealing as an indoor shark-infested swimming pool with a retractable bridge crossing it.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Unless Slashdot has a decent-sized contingent of law geeks, these constant stories about patents are really inappropriate here. Are there "patent geeks" other than timothy...?
What you have on Slashdot is a load of software geeks full to bursting with their own cleverness and sense of entitlement, who don't like nasty real world stuff like the law interfering with their sacred calling, namely to become software billionaires, and hence get a girlfriend. Who's better looking than that lucky bastard Mark Zuckerberg's one.
Posted AC for obvious...oh fuck it.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I'm sure they differ, as you are about to become part of the problem.
Yes, and criminal defence lawyers in a homicide trial are part of the problem of murder.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
No, I read the design patent. Its biggest design feature seems to be the rounded corners. I am not sure how they even qualify as non-functional. Sharp corners would be uncomfortable to hold.
Only if you normally hold electronic devices by the corners, which no one does.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Some day, it may be your innocent ass either spending money on defense, or closing your business because you can't afford "justice."
This is a potential problem for any business. If I start a business selling sweet fizzy black-dyed water in a red and white can and call it "coker cooler" I'm not going to get very far before being buried in an avalanche of injunctions and writs. (And yes, I know it's not a patent issue).
So ny question is, why do you think you should be immune from this? If you have a new product, good luck to you. If it's just riding on someone else's coattails, why should you be allowed to get away with it?
Seriously.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Slashdot has a decent-sized contingent of law geeks.
As long as by "law geek" you don't mean "someone with any actual legal qualifications" then yes, of course you're right.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So why did you use a trademark example?
(Where "this" is something like a patent on using the touchscreen on a device for which the touchscreen is the only human IO device, to activate the device, right?) I should be immune to it for the same reason that everyone else should: because this government intervention is harmful and offers no mitigating excuse for existing.
The point is that most of the time with these patent cases, nobody was trying to ride on someone else's coat tails. With software, someone is just working toward some goal (e.g. "The device is in a limited UI state, has one and only one human input device, and your job is to implement a way for the user to command the device to switch from the limited UI to fully interactive UI."), and they do what anyone would do, but the intermediate steps are patented. In situations like that, you can only hope that either they were patented over 20 years ago, or that nobody notices that you had the audacity to bring a product to market.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"Geeks" often don't have formal qualifications in the area of the geekery (and plenty of people with formal qualifications aren't geeks in the areas of their formal qualifications), what makes them geeks is intense interest and active personal knowledge-seeking, which is largely orthogonal to formal qualifications.
But, that aside, Slashdot has a fair number of regulars who are both law geeks and people with formal qualifications related to law, including attorneys.
Three recent cases have shown that common sense may be creeping into the intellectual property situation -- this case, Apple's loss to Samsung and the Oracle v. Google case. The judges in the three cases minced no words -- see http://cis471.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-intellectual-property-situation.html