| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/28/2012 11:26:47 AM · #51 |
| A facepalm on people so wrapped up in their singularity that they believe the world would never have moved forward without Apple holding its hand. Unreal. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 11:32:01 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
The point is that the first iPhone wasn't REALLY anything new. The biggest development I see is the multitouch function. And yes, Apple was the first to place a multitouch screen on a mobile device. However, Microsoft had been working with multitouch devices since 2001.
The missing 'app' feature was mentioned in that link, just not as a bullet. Apple did modify their original iPhone software at some point to allow running of scripts through the web brouser, as I understand it. But nothing groundbreaking.
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
Sorry, it sounded like you were implying some vast changes to the network took place.
Either way, despite the iPhone being the first to have visual voicemail, it's interesting to note that Klausner Technologies Inc. of Sagaponack, NY has claimed patent infringement on that feature. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 12:17:25 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ambaker:
Oh, so if you make "something useful" out of someone else's work, then it is OK. I get it now. Thanks for the enlightenment. |
You're welcome. |
you guys please, you're dealing with the defender of all things apple here, in Shannon's eyes they do no wrong, it's pointless to try to argue with him. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 12:47:24 PM · #54 |
 DrAchoo, you've always had a bee in your bonnet about Apple.
And  Yanko, this is for you.
This graphic pretty much tells the story.
If you can't connect the intellectual property dots on this one, then you're not trying very hard.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2012 12:58:27 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
DrAchoo, you've always had a bee in your bonnet about Apple. |
I liked this quote from a BBC article: "We've moved to phones now that are basically a rectangular shiny piece of glass because the touchscreen dominates the design. How do you create a rectangular, shiny piece of glass that's different from another rectangular, shiny piece of glass?"
:) I just do my duty waking some people up to the fact that Apple has changed. They used to be the little guy we liked to cheer for and now they are the big guy with all the money throwing around their weight. It takes longer for some people to notice that.
I used to keep discus fish. They are big and expensive and can be aggressive. If you have too few in the tank they tend to find the weakest and pick on it all the time. The best scenario was if you had enough that nobody felt they had the advantage and an uneasy alliance was formed and everybody was happy.
I like it when the corporate world is like that...
Message edited by author 2012-08-28 13:01:01. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 01:22:57 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
DrAchoo, you've always had a bee in your bonnet about Apple. |
I liked this quote from a BBC article: "We've moved to phones now that are basically a rectangular shiny piece of glass because the touchscreen dominates the design. How do you create a rectangular, shiny piece of glass that's different from another rectangular, shiny piece of glass?"
:) I just do my duty waking some people up to the fact that Apple has changed. They used to be the little guy we liked to cheer for and now they are the big guy with all the money throwing around their weight. It takes longer for some people to notice that.
I used to keep discus fish. They are big and expensive and can be aggressive. If you have too few in the tank they tend to find the weakest and pick on it all the time. The best scenario was if you had enough that nobody felt they had the advantage and an uneasy alliance was formed and everybody was happy.
I like it when the corporate world is like that... |
You do know that Samsung is still a major provider to Apple for iPhone/iPad components, right? Samsung put out a memo post verdict about how they enforce a strict "firewall" between the division to protect that business. If Apple was the new evil empire previously occupied by Microsoft then they would be within their rights to move that business to someone else. They haven't done that.
We all know that Apple has changed. I long for the days when Apple was a niche player and the people that knew better choose their products for thier superior design and performance and not because the products are a fashion statement.
None of this changes the fact that publicly held corporations have a duty to their shareholders to aggressively protect the brand and its intellectual property.
In this case the jury knew 1 hour into deliberations that Samsung had crossed several lines. So much so that the jury got through 90 pages of jury instructions, noted the violations on a device by device basis, and determined the monetary value of the violations in 2.5 days.
It wasn't a question of IF Samsung was guilty, only a question of how much they would pay. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 01:57:17 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
DrAchoo, you've always had a bee in your bonnet about Apple. |
I liked this quote from a BBC article: "We've moved to phones now that are basically a rectangular shiny piece of glass because the touchscreen dominates the design. How do you create a rectangular, shiny piece of glass that's different from another rectangular, shiny piece of glass?"
|
Taken to a sufficient level of abstraction, you could say the same about any product.
Cars are just shiny metal boxes with wheels and an engine.
Digital cameras are just sensors with lenses
Digital photos are just blobs of colored pixels |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 02:10:56 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
None of this changes the fact that publicly held corporations have a duty to their shareholders... |
I think a lot of crappy things have been done by the corporate world prefaced by this sentence. Apple is not unique in this regard.
I'm waiting for the triangular tablet, but that was already patented by Sabre.
Spork, I understand your objection there, but the actual case was talking about things like 'rounded corners'. If you can patent rounded corners, then someone can patent square corners and then everybody is out of luck with a rectangular phone. (Well, we could go Battlestar Galactica, but THEN you are out of options). In other words, the description is, as you said "abstract", but yet the patent infrigement is for violating "distinctive" features. The actual description in the case? "a rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners, a flat clear face covering the front of the product, a large display screen under the clear surface â€Â¦ and a matrix of colorful square icons with evenly rounded corners,"
Here's a good summary of my position which doesn't blame Apple (they are just the current bad guy), but the patent system. (note my original post said Apple might be within their rights, but the patent system is broken when it comes to technology like this).
Blame a dysfunctional patent system
Message edited by author 2012-08-28 14:14:28. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 02:24:25 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
DrAchoo, you've always had a bee in your bonnet about Apple.
And Yanko, this is for you.
This graphic pretty much tells the story.
If you can't connect the intellectual property dots on this one, then you're not trying very hard. |
Oh yeah I forgot your calendar only goes as far back as Apple's birth. We need new era designations. Start of Apple is AD2 or AA and before Apple is B.S. Appropriate since whatever happened back then is just myth now.
Message edited by author 2012-08-28 14:26:43. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 02:25:46 PM · #60 |
I like what it did for my Apple stock. ;-)
|
|
|
|
08/28/2012 02:36:33 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
...
This graphic pretty much tells the story.
... |
Speaking strickly of smartphones in general. That graphic isn't complete (it says Samsung smartphones, but has no F700). It mainly shows devices that run the WinCE/PocketPC MS OS. There were others... BlackBerry, Symbian, proprietary OSs.
Looks wise...
LG Prada vs Samsun F700 vs Iphone //www.scriptol.com/mobile/iphone.php. They came out about the same time. Seems like there's more to this that stretches way back.
Message edited by author 2012-08-28 14:58:06. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 02:38:57 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
None of this changes the fact that publicly held corporations have a duty to their shareholders... |
I think a lot of crappy things have been done by the corporate world prefaced by this sentence. Apple is not unique in this regard.
I'm waiting for the triangular tablet, but that was already patented by Sabre.
Spork, I understand your objection there, but the actual case was talking about things like 'rounded corners'. If you can patent rounded corners, then someone can patent square corners and then everybody is out of luck with a rectangular phone. (Well, we could go Battlestar Galactica, but THEN you are out of options). In other words, the description is, as you said "abstract", but yet the patent infrigement is for violating "distinctive" features. The actual description in the case? "a rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners, a flat clear face covering the front of the product, a large display screen under the clear surface â€Â¦ and a matrix of colorful square icons with evenly rounded corners,"
Here's a good summary of my position which doesn't blame Apple (they are just the current bad guy), but the patent system. (note my original post said Apple might be within their rights, but the patent system is broken when it comes to technology like this).
Blame a dysfunctional patent system |
The case was not about rounded corners no matter how many times it's repeated. If it was just about rounded corners then it would have never come to trail. You would have a bit more credibility if you dropped that obviously politician-esque argument.
The is a design and functionality case. they are integral to one another. To separate them only proves that you can't separate them and make a case.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2012 02:41:46 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
DrAchoo, you've always had a bee in your bonnet about Apple.
And Yanko, this is for you.
This graphic pretty much tells the story.
If you can't connect the intellectual property dots on this one, then you're not trying very hard. |
Oh yeah I forgot your calendar only goes as far back as Apple's birth. We need new era designations. Start of Apple is AD2 or AA and before Apple is B.S. Appropriate since whatever happened back then is just myth now. |
Not if they had a patent on it.
You guys make fun of so called fanboys, but it's equally comical to watch you guys fall over yourselves to make sure Apple doesn't get any credit for what they've done.
Looks like serious sour grapes to me. I just don't understand why. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 02:44:52 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
None of this changes the fact that publicly held corporations have a duty to their shareholders... |
I think a lot of crappy things have been done by the corporate world prefaced by this sentence. Apple is not unique in this regard.
I'm waiting for the triangular tablet, but that was already patented by Sabre.
Spork, I understand your objection there, but the actual case was talking about things like 'rounded corners'. If you can patent rounded corners, then someone can patent square corners and then everybody is out of luck with a rectangular phone. (Well, we could go Battlestar Galactica, but THEN you are out of options). In other words, the description is, as you said "abstract", but yet the patent infrigement is for violating "distinctive" features. The actual description in the case? "a rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners, a flat clear face covering the front of the product, a large display screen under the clear surface â€Â¦ and a matrix of colorful square icons with evenly rounded corners,"
Here's a good summary of my position which doesn't blame Apple (they are just the current bad guy), but the patent system. (note my original post said Apple might be within their rights, but the patent system is broken when it comes to technology like this).
Blame a dysfunctional patent system |
In that aspect, maybe, but other portions of the infringement suit, such as those over the specific gestures used to control the apps/phone have more validity are are really more interesting.
Some of those gestures have now become "common" across platforms. So if Apple prevents others from using them in phones/tablets, then they become unique to Apple products. Which could mean that Apple becomes the more "natural" choice for phones/tablets because people are used to they way they are controlled. OTOH, other companies are entirely capable of designing their own gesture commands, which may not be first, but given the minute share of the global smartphone market controlled by Apple, might be entirely capable of making Apple's gesture system the oddball and thereby diminishing Apple's share.
What will be even more amusing is if Samsung prevails over Apple on the same issues in foreign courts. While Apple controls a significant market share in the US, due to the price of the iPhone, they hold a much smaller share abroad.
I can see how a patent for a certain shape, of which rounded corners defined by a specific mathematical relationship to the dimensions of the rectangle could be worthy of protection. I doubt that the patent of which Apple is alleging infringement that covers "rounded corners" is as broad as some have presented it to be.
After all, did you know the Weight Watchers formula for computing the "points" in their weight loss system is patented?
|
|
|
|
08/28/2012 02:51:41 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
The case was not about rounded corners no matter how many times it's repeated. If it was just about rounded corners then it would have never come to trail. You would have a bit more credibility if you dropped that obviously politician-esque argument.
The is a design and functionality case. they are integral to one another. To separate them only proves that you can't separate them and make a case. |
I dunno. The case wasn't ONLY about rounded corners, but they definitely played their part. Here's a summary of the case by a design blog:
Initially, Apple threw everything it could at the wall--trademarks, trade dress registrations, design patents, and technical utility patents--but only a few ended up sticking. The trial centered on four design patents, two of which mainly cover the edge-to-edge glass of the iPhone̢۪s display and the handset̢۪s rounded corners. Another covers the general grid layout for icons in iOS, and yet another is concerned with the iPad̢۪s thin bezel, rounded corners, and edge-to-edge glass. Then there are a few utility patents that cover certain behaviors in iOS--namely the double tap-to-zoom feature and something referred to as "bounce back" scrolling--basically how you continue to see the background of a certain screen, say, your inbox or a webpage, when you try to scroll past its boundaries. Apple also filed a trade dress claim, a more general complaint concerned with elements of product design that distinguish Apple̢۪s products from those of its competitors. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 03:06:02 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The case wasn't ONLY about rounded corners, but they definitely played their part. |
I posted a direct link to the patent early in this thread. It was NOT a patent on rounded corners, and didn't even mention them. It was a design patent on the overall physical appearance, of which rounded corners were one characteristic. Claiming Apple patented rounded corners is as nutty as claiming Coca-Cola patented ridges. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 03:12:51 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
The point is that the first iPhone wasn't REALLY anything new. |
Riiiight... multitouch, visual voicemail, "real" internet browsing, iTunes integration, gyros and sensors, slide to unlock, Google maps... and Time Magazine's Best Invention of 2007. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 03:19:06 PM · #68 |
Shannon, I agree with you in principle, but in fact there isn't really much else to the patent claims. I personally find this kid of "patent" abhorrent, but of course that's just my opinion. I agree with Jason's position that the patent system is broken. I can't blame Apple for leveraging the system for business advantage. In any case, I don't think we've heard the end of it; it's likely to be appealed.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2012 03:40:15 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Shannon, I agree with you in principle, but in fact there isn't really much else to the patent claims. |
The design patent in question was linked. How would YOU describe the physical design of the iPad if not by its thin bezel, edge-to-edge glass and rounded corners? This is, after all, the whole purpose of a design patent. There were no phones or tablet computers with this combination of characteristics before Apple spent years working on them, but shortly thereafter Samsung produces products so similar that their own lawyers can't tell the difference. Why is legal protection from a blatant competitive knockoff evidence of a broken system? |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 03:48:55 PM · #70 |
| I think you hit it on the head. Design patents are very difficult to enforce, and really only prevent photocopy duplications from being made. They are generally pretty flimsy protection, but it seems Apply got a favorable review in court. In reviewing some of the Samsung designs on that one picture you posted, I can see potential infringement. I had previously thought Apple was going after the majority of Android devices, but it doesn't seem so (must have been a twist of media)... just going after a few specific Samsung designs. Which I'm OK with. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 03:54:49 PM · #71 |
| I also dislike Apple as a company, but I do want to point out that it was almost a full year between when the IPad was released and the first serious Android Tablet (Samsung) really hit the market. If Apple hadn't come out with Ipad I don't think we'd have the Tablet market that we have now. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 04:00:12 PM · #72 |
Here's my issue more than the rounded corner bit (which I think is silly). I don't want to see companies able to patent things like "pinch to zoom" because then you are going to have patents like "silence ring with button" or "see text before unlock" which is basic functionality. Apple didn't invent "pinch to zoom" (but have apparently tried to patent it) and I don't want to have to have each and every phone have their own custom patents which never meet in a single device. Hey, I like pinch to zoom. It makes sense. Does that mean I can only ever buy an Apple product? That would be a lame world indeed for me as the consumer.
What this guys said...
As my colleague Kyle Vanhemert outlined Monday, without usability standards, the consumer experience suffers. The pinch-to-zoom gesture is part of an intuitive, cross-platform interaction language, but due to the Samsung verdict, companies might now hestitate to mimic the experience. The jury also found Samsung had violated other Apple utility patents, for example, including patents for its tap-to-zoom gesture and rubberbanding technology. "It̢۪s very much possible that pinch-to-zoom is the best way of zooming in on a map," Vanhemert wrote. "Forcing smartphone developers to come up with a different way of doing things for the sake of coming up with a different way of doing things is outrageously stupid."
Message edited by author 2012-08-28 16:01:39. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 04:01:31 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
You guys make fun of so called fanboys, but it's equally comical to watch you guys fall over yourselves to make sure Apple doesn't get any credit for what they've done. Looks like serious sour grapes to me. I just don't understand why. |
That's an important point. It is clear that Apple did by far not invent everything in the iPhone from scratch. But they must have produced at least some innovation, otherwise why would their product make the breakthrough where all others failed???
During the trial, internal Samsung documents were produced with instructions to copy the iPhone... So the bad intent was there. Afterwards it's only question if Apple's patent lawyers were clever enough to protect their innovations, or if Samsung's are cleverer and find loopholes, but that's just boring legal business.
Doc: when you say it's a bad day for consumers, then maybe yes in the sense that smartphone prices will drop less fast than with another verdict. But in the longterm, I am convinced that it is far more interesting for consumers if other companies try to compete by being innovative themselves and not just copying. Surely you realise there would not be a single new medication coming on the market without strong laws on IP protection. |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 04:03:27 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Doc: when you say it's a bad day for consumers, then maybe yes in the sense that smartphone prices will drop less fast than with another verdict. But in the longterm, I am convinced that it is far more interesting for consumers if other companies try to compete by being innovative themselves and not just copying. Surely you realise there would not be a single new medication coming on the market without strong laws on IP protection. |
Mmmm hmmm. I also realize because of the same IP protection laws some medicines I used are $500/month, $15,000/year, and, the record for ones we use, $500,000/year. It's a tension that demands protection on both sides... |
|
|
|
08/28/2012 04:10:17 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does that mean I can only ever buy an Apple product? |
Just because you want a particular technology does not give you the right to copy it from someone else. That's what licensing is for. Apple bought Fingerworks for its multi-touch technology, and already has licensing deals with Nokia and others. |
|
