| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/28/2012 12:59:09 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
perhaps you should get your facts straight. |
Back at ya, hotshot. When Xerox sued Apple, it was over copyrights relating to the GUI, not patents. The charges were thrown out both because Apple's graphics were substantially different and because Xerox was improperly asserting unfair competition from a copyright infringement matter. Fun trivia: the ruling came from the same judge that threw out Prop 8 in California.
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
Apple did not invent the MP3 player. |
I never said they did (and I had a Diamond Rio, too), but Apple's combination of elegant usability and the iTunes Store blew away other music players to date.
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
Apple didn't invent the smartphone. |
Again, I never said they did, and dumb phones were the cell phones that predated ALL smartphones. I still own one. However, the elegant usability and combination of services like "real" internet browsing were again unmatched at the time. AT&T literally had to modify its network to accommodate some of the iPhone's innovations. If people were really happy with their old phones, Nokia and Blackberry wouldn't be struggling for survival, Android wouldn't exist, and Samsung wouldn't have ripped off the iPhone.
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
He was not an inventor, nor was he a programmer. He was just a carnie with a loud mouth and a bigger ego. |
Um... are you referring to the same Steve Jobs listed as the primary or co-inventor on 241 patents and who appears at or near the top of lists of the greatest inventors of our era? |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 12:59:19 AM · #27 |
There was very little surprise that the U.S born Apple Inc would win over the Korean Samsung in an American courtroom. The Japanese, as far as I have seen on TV and in the papers, think that it's a loss for Apple as far as their image is concerned. I'm biased against Apple, as  DCNUTTER said, they stole from Xerox and didn't seem to mind but when someone walks the grey line between their products and possible competition, they are ready with their lawyers.
I'm not sure how jury selection was done, but I wish they had made it a jury of tech savvy people who understood to some degree, patent laws. If the jury didn't own any iphone's, they do now.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2012 01:01:22 AM · #28 |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 01:01:48 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just like to see the fanboys get their undies in a knot. |
When does scarbrd relieve Shannon?
Being how cheap Apple is I doubt they pay overtime. :P
Message edited by author 2012-08-28 01:02:57. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 01:02:37 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
He was not an inventor, nor was he a programmer. He was just a carnie with a loud mouth and a bigger ego. |
Um... are you referring to the same Steve Jobs listed as the primary or co-inventor on 241 patents and who appears at or near the top of lists of the greatest inventors of our era? |
His name may be on them, but you have to wonder how much he was really involved with the patents.
New guy: "Hey Steve, I just invented this and think it would make a great product for the next iphone. What do you think?"
Steve: "OK, let's put a patent on that, make sure to put me down as co-inventor. We can't have anybody thinking I'm just sitting here twiddling my thumbs." |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 01:02:59 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
I'm not sure how jury selection was done, but I wish they had made it a jury of tech savvy people who understood to some degree, patent laws. |
The jury was loaded with tech savvy people, including a foreman with several patents of his own and who had served in other patent trials.
Message edited by author 2012-08-28 01:23:56. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 01:09:25 AM · #32 |
This thread is hilarious.
I wish a had a whole list of cool GIFs to put here, but I'm sure they are patented and I'd get sued over it.
BTW I read the Steve Jobs book and I highly recommend it, if you want to get a better idea of who Steve Jobs was. You might be a bit surprised at how intelligent the guy really was, well except that whole I can beat Cancer without treatment thing.
Matt |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 01:11:06 AM · #33 |
Scalvert, I knight thee protector of the realm.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2012 01:13:16 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
perhaps you should get your facts straight. |
Back at ya, hotshot. When Xerox sued Apple, it was over copyrights relating to the GUI, not patents. The charges were thrown out both because Apple's graphics were substantially different and because Xerox was improperly asserting unfair competition from a copyright infringement matter. Fun trivia: the ruling came from the same judge that threw out Prop 8 in California.
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
Apple did not invent the MP3 player. |
I never said they did (and I had a Diamond Rio, too), but Apple's combination of elegant usability and the iTunes Store blew away other music players to date.
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
Apple didn't invent the smartphone. |
Again, I never said they did, and dumb phones were the cell phones that predated ALL smartphones. I still own one. However, the elegant usability and combination of services like "real" internet browsing were again unmatched at the time. AT&T literally had to modify its network to accommodate some of the iPhone's innovations. If people were really happy with their old phones, Nokia and Blackberry wouldn't be struggling for survival, Android wouldn't exist, and Samsung wouldn't have ripped off the iPhone.
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
He was not an inventor, nor was he a programmer. He was just a carnie with a loud mouth and a bigger ego. |
Um... are you referring to the same Steve Jobs listed as the primary or co-inventor on 241 patents and who appears at or near the top of lists of the greatest inventors of our era? |
Shannon, as an electronics engineering tech for many years I have yet to work for a company that upon hire didn't make me sign a release form for ALL prototypes, inventions and designs etc. developed while working for the company. That includes Lockheed Martin, BAE, McIntosh Labs, Raymond Corporation, Xerox etc. Either a company name or some CEO's name is on that paper work. Just because he took the credit and put the patent in his name doesn't mean he came up with the idea or did the work. That's a given.
Dave |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 01:15:30 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How a lack of competition could actually be good for us, I don't know |
Frankly, it's staggering how much you don't know. This was like Pepsi marketing their product in a green bottle shaped exactly like Coca-Cola's (also a design patent), and that's not legal. Chinese knockoffs would be similarly "good for consumers," but extremely discouraging for innovation. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 01:15:44 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just like to see the fanboys get their undies in a knot. |
When does scarbrd relieve Shannon?
Being how cheap Apple is I doubt they pay overtime. :P |
I'm generally on the against side of Apple parading, but this is a bit of an unfair mark. It's more than most of the positions that are even remotely comparable around here pay, and include benefits. Now, whether employees get benefits is perhaps a different matter (Starbucks and WalMart, for instance, notoriously schedule their employees for hours just shy of the amount that qualifies them for said benefits), but that isn't addressed so far as I saw.
We have a relatively high level of economic development, so general labor jobs are extreme bottom and often occupied by immigrants and that segment of the population lacking any degrees, and service industries are just one rung above that. To expect service industries to magically hop up the income ladder is a bit ridiculous, as it would just further reduce the reasons for even attempting to get a degree unless incomes across the board went up substantially.
Now, the conditions in their overseas factories is something to be far more upset about, but frankly, I don't find the article linked to be supporting the idea that Apple truly fleeces its employees. If you want to complain that employees can't afford the products with such a salary, okay, but that's not really very unusual. Take the photography industry, if all your friends can afford your services, you're probably underpricing or you hang out with a higher socioeconomic class than you reside in. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 01:17:16 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
He was not an inventor, nor was he a programmer. He was just a carnie with a loud mouth and a bigger ego. |
Um... are you referring to the same Steve Jobs listed as the primary or co-inventor on 241 patents and who appears at or near the top of lists of the greatest inventors of our era? |
His name may be on them, but you have to wonder how much he was really involved with the patents.
New guy: "Hey Steve, I just invented this and think it would make a great product for the next iphone. What do you think?"
Steve: "OK, let's put a patent on that, make sure to put me down as co-inventor. We can't have anybody thinking I'm just sitting here twiddling my thumbs." |
If Steve Jobs was just sitting there twiddling his thumbs I doubt he would have ignored his health the way he did. No, Jobs was a workaholic who put his work above even his own health.
I don't know enough about this suit or patent law to speak intelligently about it but I do know that Steve Jobs was not just "sitting there twiddling his thumbs". |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 01:17:45 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
Shannon, as an electronics engineering tech for many years I have yet to work for a company that upon hire didn't make me sign a release form for ALL prototypes, inventions and designs etc. developed while working for the company. That includes Lockheed Martin, BAE, McIntosh Labs, Raymond Corporation, Xerox etc. Either a company name or some CEO's name is on that paper work. Just because he took the credit and put the patent in his name doesn't mean he came up with the idea or did the work. That's a given.
Dave |
Like saying Edison personally developed everything... ::rolls eyes:: |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 01:19:40 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
Shannon, as an electronics engineering tech for many years I have yet to work for a company that upon hire didn't make me sign a release form for ALL prototypes, inventions and designs etc. developed while working for the company. That includes Lockheed Martin, BAE, McIntosh Labs, Raymond Corporation, Xerox etc. Either a company name or some CEO's name is on that paper work. Just because he took the credit and put the patent in his name doesn't mean he came up with the idea or did the work. That's a given.
Dave |
Like saying Edison personally developed everything... ::rolls eyes:: |
Tesla!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 01:21:51 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
Just because he took the credit and put the patent in his name doesn't mean he came up with the idea or did the work. |
There's more to invention than the actual engineering. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 01:23:09 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
Tesla!!!!!!! |
Now, if only there were a crazy electronics designer living outside Colorado Springs, we'd be SET! |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 01:54:06 AM · #42 |
Patents are bull.
Basically all of these are different patents:
"The digital camera"
"The use of a digital camera in a device"
"The use of a digital camera in a portable device"
"The use of a digital camera in a portable telephony device"
"The use of a digital camera in a portable touch screen telephony device"
"The use of a digital camera in a portable touch screen telephony smart device"
IT'S ALL THE SAME THING!
(PS I know it's not exactly like this, these are just examples of how stupid patents are):
Message edited by author 2012-08-28 01:54:24. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 02:01:26 AM · #43 |
Patents are absolutely essential to encouraging development. If there was no patent law, there would be zero incentive to lay down the costs to develop ANYTHING because as soon as you dropped the money and had it out, your competitor, who has been sitting there biding their time, rips off the exact same product and makes it cheaper because they didn't pay for development, and you're sunk, never to recoup those costs. Look at Phottix in the photography industry as a great case in point. They undercut everybody because they don't develop ANYTHING. Their triggers were blocked from markets for this reason, since they just copied a PW verbatim. Pocket Wizards are expensive, sure, but why would PW's be developed to be so robust, reliable, and with such long range if the company knew Phottix could legally just copy everything in the device and piggyback their R&D with ZERO COST.
I'm not saying patent or even copyright law is up to speed today, but to say it's stupid is to completely miss the reason they were enacted and the problem at hand. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 02:04:27 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
If Steve Jobs was just sitting there twiddling his thumbs I doubt he would have ignored his health the way he did. No, Jobs was a workaholic who put his work above even his own health.
I don't know enough about this suit or patent law to speak intelligently about it but I do know that Steve Jobs was not just "sitting there twiddling his thumbs". |
He most certainly was focused on his health but decided to use 'alternative medicine' as his way to deal with his disease. He certainly didn't ignore it. He went as far as to talk with psychics. His choice to deal with it in that way is what led to his early death (Compared to what his life expectancy would have been had he gone with conventional treatments) and from what I understand it is something he regretted. During that time, I doubt he would have been able to do much. My father died of cancer, he was a workaholic and a strong man, but the disease got the best of him and he couldn't work, although he did say he could feel that he could handle some work at some times during his battle. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 02:33:43 AM · #45 |
I understand that the laws are important. However isn't using a CAMERA in a touch screen phone the same as a phone with a keypad????
As far as the tech goes nothing's different except for the interface input device... Nothing even related to the camera or how it interacts with other technology yet it gets a different patent?
|
|
|
|
08/28/2012 05:14:06 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just like to see the fanboys get their undies in a knot. |
Doc, I would think you would have learned by now not to mess with any of Shannon's Idols. :P |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 09:40:14 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:
Apple didn't invent the smartphone. |
Again, I never said they did, and dumb phones were the cell phones that predated ALL smartphones. I still own one. However, the elegant usability and combination of services like "real" internet browsing were again unmatched at the time. AT&T literally had to modify its network to accommodate some of the iPhone's innovations. If people were really happy with their old phones, Nokia and Blackberry wouldn't be struggling for survival, Android wouldn't exist, and Samsung wouldn't have ripped off the iPhone. |
I'm not sure you can draw this conclusion. The iPhone II was launched in July 2008 (You can't really count the iPhone I as a modern smart phone... many do not consider it a smart phone). The first Android device was launched in October 2008. So unless you think Google and HTC somehow had a 3 month development cycle, I don't think you can say that Android wouldn't exist without the iPhone.
And AT&T didn't create 3G for the iPhone. The 3G standard was developed in the 1980s, Verizon launched it in the US in 2002. AT&T didn't launch 3G until 2005. So if anything, the iPhone was created FOR the newly modified networks - a reverse of your argument. Or maybe you're talking about some other internal network modifications?
So in essence, you're saying Apple's innovation was "elegant usability"? Difficult to nail that one down. :) |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 09:59:37 AM · #48 |
| The PC/Mac struggle has spilled over into the phone crowd : P |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 10:33:11 AM · #49 |
Patents are a tricky thing. If they're too broad, they are likely to get voided and if they're too narrow, you've just handed an opportunity to your competitor and done much of the work for them. When I worked in consumer appliances, I know that our Korean competitors had "War Rooms" set up with our latest appliances and all of our patents so that they could engineer their products around our patents. Our security guards caught spies rummaging through our dumpsters looking for discarded prototype parts, drawings etc. They also got caught taking photgraphs from a disguised van into our loading dock from the road. All of this so they didn't have to do the actual "invention".
Most companies have you sign an agreement that they have the right to license any intellectual property you create using company resources while working for them, even if that IP is not related to the company's work. If the company gets "fussy", they can try to lay claim to anything you create. So, think twice before atarting a project using your work laptop or that really cool, expensive software your company uses. For patents, you usually get some cash award and your name goes on the patent, but the company really "owns" it. Even if you invented something, your name might not go on the patent. I co-invented a few drive systems, but since I was a contract employee at the time, the company wouldn't put my name on the patent and instead put only the company employees' names. It's entirely possible that Jobs did little or no technical work on some or even all of the patents he holds.
Message edited by author 2012-08-28 10:35:15. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 10:42:16 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
The iPhone II was launched in July 2008 (You can't really count the iPhone I as a modern smart phone... |
Ahem... your post-launch review of the first iPhone is from January, 2007, and none of the listed drawbacks define a smartphone (really? a removable battery makes the phone smart?). The only [unmentioned] feature that might qualify was the inability to install apps, but that function DID appear on the original iPhone.
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
And AT&T didn't create 3G for the iPhone. |
I never said they did. The first iPhone didn't even have 3G, so it certainly wasn't created for that. Apple worked with Cingular to provide visual voicemail and a simplified registration process.
Message edited by author 2012-08-28 10:45:08. |
|
