geekhack
geekhack Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: daerid on Tue, 11 June 2013, 12:24:36
-
Moderation note: this topic was split off from What's your smartphone (http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=36234.)
The smartphone market is a ****ing train wreck right now. Way too many companies with grudges against each other that should be working with each other instead.
-
Unfortunately, it's hard for them to work together when one of them basically invented the device and the others have been copying bits and pieces of it all along, sometimes more than bits and pieces in fact.
=X
-
Unfortunately, it's hard for them to work together when one of them basically invented the device and the others have been copying bits and pieces of it all along, sometimes more than bits and pieces in fact.
That doesn't make it hard to work together. What you just described is just hubris to the detriment of the consumer. And they all borrow off each other anyways. Sure the iPhone was first, but practically all the iOS 7 changes were pulled from other OSes (or they at least had those features first).
-
Got a gs4 today, I liked the feel and look of the htc one as well and I'm sure I'd be happy either way as when you boil it down, they're very similar devices, but my other hobby is being an audio dork and as such I keep 30-40 gb of music on my device so the htc one won't cut it.
My galaxy nexus(32gb, no sd like htxone) was jam packed and I would regularly have to prune things to get updates to work.
Hehe same reason I have a GNote2. Can't wait for GNote3 :p
Unfortunately, it's hard for them to work together when one of them basically invented the device and the others have been copying bits and pieces of it all along, sometimes more than bits and pieces in fact.
That doesn't make it hard to work together. What you just described is just hubris to the detriment of the consumer. And they all borrow off each other anyways. Sure the iPhone was first, but practically all the iOS 7 changes were pulled from other OSes (or they at least had those features first).
This^
-
Unfortunately, it's hard for them to work together when one of them basically invented the device and the others have been copying bits and pieces of it all along, sometimes more than bits and pieces in fact.
I'm not so convinced of that, and neither are the judges apparently.
Go back and look at Palm Pilot, Newton, Motorola Flip Phones, Windows (including Mobile), Mac, handheld house phones... They all had an awful lot of the bits and pieces used to create these phones. Yes, Iphone did change the landscape a bit, but these companies are trying to make millions of absolutely asinine patents, just to stifle competition, nothing more.
It is a train wreck though, at least for Android. More than once I have considered an Iphone just to free of the clusterf*ck that is Android. No security updates (WTF!), each phone has to have custom firmware (which is why there are no updates), too many screen sizes and resolutions to account for, and so much more, all with no control or oversight. It makes for a development disaster, and as for the updates, come on these aren't dumb phones, these are mini computers on the internet, you know, that thing that is constantly under attack... Even when there is an update, the carrier has to patch that in order to make it "theirs", which often just screws things up more. Of all the things Apple did with the Iphone, treating it as a computer and maintaining control by not letting carriers mess with it was the best things they did.
I like Android (I develop for it), I like Open Source, but Android all too often seems like they took the worst parts of a phone and computer, and made them into something that should never have left the drawing board.
-
Got a gs4 today, I liked the feel and look of the htc one as well and I'm sure I'd be happy either way as when you boil it down, they're very similar devices, but my other hobby is being an audio dork and as such I keep 30-40 gb of music on my device so the htc one won't cut it.
My galaxy nexus(32gb, no sd like htxone) was jam packed and I would regularly have to prune things to get updates to work.
Hehe same reason I have a GNote2. Can't wait for GNote3 :p
Had I been able to find a hard release of the gnote3, I probably would have held off, but the screen size difference isn't immense either way.
I'm liking a lot of the gesture/eye based stuff.
Unfortunately, it's hard for them to work together when one of them basically invented the device and the others have been copying bits and pieces of it all along, sometimes more than bits and pieces in fact.
That doesn't make it hard to work together. What you just described is just hubris to the detriment of the consumer. And they all borrow off each other anyways. Sure the iPhone was first, but practically all the iOS 7 changes were pulled from other OSes (or they at least had those features first).
This^
[/quote]
I have undefined feels about this, but the litigious side of this screams of a mindset that feels jilted by the apple/ibm/microsoft thing.
Unfortunately, it's hard for them to work together when one of them basically invented the device and the others have been copying bits and pieces of it all along, sometimes more than bits and pieces in fact.
I'm not so convinced of that, and neither are the judges apparently.
Go back and look at Palm Pilot, Newton, Motorola Flip Phones, Windows (including Mobile), Mac, handheld house phones... They all had an awful lot of the bits and pieces used to create these phones. Yes, Iphone did change the landscape a bit, but these companies are trying to make millions of absolutely asinine patents, just to stifle competition, nothing more.
It is a train wreck though, at least for Android. More than once I have considered an Iphone just to free of the clusterf*ck that is Android. No security updates (WTF!), each phone has to have custom firmware (which is why there are no updates), too many screen sizes and resolutions to account for, and so much more, all with no control or oversight. It makes for a development disaster, and as for the updates, come on these aren't dumb phones, these are mini computers on the internet, you know, that thing that is constantly under attack... Even when there is an update, the carrier has to patch that in order to make it "theirs", which often just screws things up more. Of all the things Apple did with the Iphone, treating it as a computer and maintaining control by not letting carriers mess with it was the best things they did.
I like Android (I develop for it), I like Open Source, but Android all too often seems like they took the worst parts of a phone and computer, and made them into something that should never have left the drawing board.
Actually, ^.
I was not extremely close, but the iphone5 was in the realm of possibilities because it just works. I plug in the dock connector and music plays while charging it. I'm also not a power user by any means. But end of the day, I enjoy the larger screen for video streaming and whatnot.
-
Unfortunately, it's hard for them to work together when one of them basically invented the device and the others have been copying bits and pieces of it all along, sometimes more than bits and pieces in fact.
That doesn't make it hard to work together. What you just described is just hubris to the detriment of the consumer. And they all borrow off each other anyways. Sure the iPhone was first, but practically all the iOS 7 changes were pulled from other OSes (or they at least had those features first).
Unfortunately, it's hard for them to work together when one of them basically invented the device and the others have been copying bits and pieces of it all along, sometimes more than bits and pieces in fact.
I'm not so convinced of that, and neither are the judges apparently.
Go back and look at Palm Pilot, Newton, Motorola Flip Phones, Windows (including Mobile), Mac, handheld house phones... They all had an awful lot of the bits and pieces used to create these phones. Yes, Iphone did change the landscape a bit, but these companies are trying to make millions of absolutely asinine patents, just to stifle competition, nothing more.
It is a train wreck though, at least for Android. More than once I have considered an Iphone just to free of the clusterf*ck that is Android. No security updates (WTF!), each phone has to have custom firmware (which is why there are no updates), too many screen sizes and resolutions to account for, and so much more, all with no control or oversight. It makes for a development disaster, and as for the updates, come on these aren't dumb phones, these are mini computers on the internet, you know, that thing that is constantly under attack... Even when there is an update, the carrier has to patch that in order to make it "theirs", which often just screws things up more. Of all the things Apple did with the Iphone, treating it as a computer and maintaining control by not letting carriers mess with it was the best things they did.
I like Android (I develop for it), I like Open Source, but Android all too often seems like they took the worst parts of a phone and computer, and made them into something that should never have left the drawing board.
I honestly don't think it's THAT bad with Android, the HTC One is looking pretty nice right about now.
And yes, daerid, it does make it hard. What you just said is basically like saying "Hey, you stole my lunch money!" "You're right, I did! Let's work together to get lunch!"
Apple did not want to work with other companies, and what you described has never even happened before with phones as far as I can tell. The iOS 7 changes were changes largely requested by users, and do not infringe on trade dress laws or anything because they are radically different in the way they look and function from their Android equivalents. I suppose Android invented the 3D depth illusion with the accelerometer? And I mean mainstream, no cyanogen or any custom ROMs.
Leslieann, I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from. The original iPhone in 2007 shared basically only phone, text and web functionality with previous phones. Functionality cannot be trademarked nor patented, only the way it is accomplished can be. It looked radically unique and different from anything anyone had ever seen, I remember looking at it being a PC guy and saying "Wow, Apple got it right with this thing!" I won't go as far as to say Apple invented the smartphone, but you can't ignore the fact that most people thought "iPhone" when someone said smartphone until Android pulled its act together with the GS3. They revolutionized a market and took phones on a path no one expected them to. It's like with the new Mac Pro. I can guarantee you will start seeing extremely compact Windows machines in the coming months as Samsung and Dell see what people want in a workstation nowadays. The patents aren't asinine, there is a serious problem when a company's unique idea is indistinguishable from another's similar product to a jury in a court of law. Might I remind you that these patent lawsuits were given to Apple in every country except Korea, where Samsung basically has the government under its heel anyways. Apple was protecting its right to patent protection under the law, all companies have the right to that, and to say they were stifling innovation by trying to eliminate shameless copies of their products is like saying that if someone is copying your unique cookie design, stamping them out is bad because you are "stifling innovation." They have a legal duty to their shareholders to make as much money as they can, and not pursuing lawsuits against companies trying to leech off of their years of engineering is certainly not a good idea.
-
Yes, years of engineering the shape of a rectangle.
When most patent lawyers call a patent a joke and it still gets upheld, something's not right.
-
Yes, years of engineering the shape of a rectangle.
When most patent lawyers call a patent a joke and it still gets upheld, something's not right.
Most patent lawyers? Source please?
And the suit was over way more than just the shape of the phone. Besides which, parallel sides and rounded edges with a button that takes you back to a central screen had not been done before. Samsung could have chosen many unique shapes for their device. If you look at pictures of the i9000 Galaxy S, that silver border and rounded edges and central button look almost identical to those of an iPhone's.
-
That lawsuit was completely broken. Some of the claims have already been rejected by the PTO due to prior art that Apple was surely well aware of. Why should Samsung or anyone else have to spend all that money over a patent that the PTO themselves now rejects. Hopefully it will get fixed on appeal...but the current system is broken. Its got little to do with innovation and everything to do with abusing a broken system to damage your competition and preventing new players from entering the field.
-
That lawsuit was completely solid. Some of the claims have already been rejected by the PTO due to prior art that Apple was surely well aware of. I can't remember the source, I think I found it on an anti-Apple hate forum. Why should Samsung or anyone else have to spend all that money over a patent that the PTO themselves now rejects. I think it's because they shamelessly copied Apple's device. Hopefully it will get fixed on appeal...but the current system is really good. Its got a lot to do with innovation and nothing to do with abusing a broken system to damage your competition and preventing new players from entering the field.
FTFY
I can tell what I said has fallen on deaf ears. If you look at the iPhone/3G/3GS and compare it to the Galaxy S or even the Galaxy S2 and to a lesser the GS3, they are indistinguishable in many respects. The black bezel, silver border meeting the case behind it, button at the bottom that brings you to your central screen, the list goes on and on. They weren't preventing new players from entering the field, they were forcing them to come up with their own designs instead of using Apple's as a way to trick people into buying their devices. It's like back in '06 when the dumb phones all started looking like BlackBerrys. This happens fairly often, and they were not abusing a system. I can tell that most people here are anti-patent. The question is why? I am also willing to bet that most of you who responded to my original post pirate music as well. You have to see the patent system and see Apple for what they are. If you think it is all right to blatantly copy someone else's design, by all means call the system broken and complain about how your favorite company got busted for shameless imitation.
-
That lawsuit was completely solid. Some of the claims have already been rejected by the PTO due to prior art that Apple was surely well aware of. I can't remember the source, I think I found it on an anti-Apple hate forum. Why should Samsung or anyone else have to spend all that money over a patent that the PTO themselves now rejects. I think it's because they shamelessly copied Apple's device. Hopefully it will get fixed on appeal...but the current system is really good. Its got a lot to do with innovation and nothing to do with abusing a broken system to damage your competition and preventing new players from entering the field.
FTFY
I can tell what I said has fallen on deaf ears. If you look at the iPhone/3G/3GS and compare it to the Galaxy S or even the Galaxy S2 and to a lesser the GS3, they are indistinguishable in many respects. The black bezel, silver border meeting the case behind it, button at the bottom that brings you to your central screen, the list goes on and on. They weren't preventing new players from entering the field, they were forcing them to come up with their own designs instead of using Apple's as a way to trick people into buying their devices. It's like back in '06 when the dumb phones all started looking like BlackBerrys. This happens fairly often, and they were not abusing a system. I can tell that most people here are anti-patent. The question is why? I am also willing to bet that most of you who responded to my original post pirate music as well. You have to see the patent system and see Apple for what they are. If you think it is all right to blatantly copy someone else's design, by all means call the system broken and complain about how your favorite company got busted for shameless imitation.
I agree Samsung went too far with the GS3 buttons, but much of the rest, is just as rknize said, it's about stifling competition, and damaging your competitor.
I don't think you understood my argument about prior art, because you seem to think it's irrelevant. Yes, apple created something new with the Iphone, but it was all based on prior things, made into something new and revolutionary. Patents don't necessarily apply just because you used it in a slightly way (they can, but it depends).
Maybe you need to see what Apple actually was suing over...
When HTC was banned from importing phones, it had to do with clicking a link in a text message opening a browser... I kid you not. Can you honestly tell me you think THAT was revolutionary and needed to be protected and stop others from profiting from?
THAT is the kind of things they are suing each other over.
It's not some special feature Apple has, it's about basic operations, which have been used for years in similar systems.
-
I can tell what I said has fallen on deaf ears. If you look at the iPhone/3G/3GS and compare it to the Galaxy S or even the Galaxy S2 and to a lesser the GS3, they are indistinguishable in many respects. The black bezel, silver border meeting the case behind it, button at the bottom that brings you to your central screen, the list goes on and on. They weren't preventing new players from entering the field, they were forcing them to come up with their own designs instead of using Apple's as a way to trick people into buying their devices. It's like back in '06 when the dumb phones all started looking like BlackBerrys. This happens fairly often, and they were not abusing a system. I can tell that most people here are anti-patent. The question is why? I am also willing to bet that most of you who responded to my original post pirate music as well. You have to see the patent system and see Apple for what they are. If you think it is all right to blatantly copy someone else's design, by all means call the system broken and complain about how your favorite company got busted for shameless imitation.
Hardly. I have been following this lawsuit and several others with great interest. You yourself mentioned the design patent was just one part of this lawsuit. Yet here you use it as the crux of your counter-argument. I'm not even talking about the rectangle patent. Yeah...Samsung went too far there. I'm talking about all the other patents they used and are using. MS and the rest are all doing the same thing. You must not have been following the trial if you think it was about rectangles. The media fixated on that because it was absurd, but that was just one facet. Read the transcripts. The jury instructions were completely screwed up and the jury got totally confused. Then we learn that the foreman was making up his own rules and steering the jury based on his own patent experience. He even boasted about it in public. The jury didn't even follow the instructions they were given.
Now they are supposed to go on to damages. Damages for patents that are now invalidated by the PTO! The trial was completely solid? Please. The trial was a total loss.
-
That lawsuit was completely solid. Some of the claims have already been rejected by the PTO due to prior art that Apple was surely well aware of. I can't remember the source, I think I found it on an anti-Apple hate forum. Why should Samsung or anyone else have to spend all that money over a patent that the PTO themselves now rejects. I think it's because they shamelessly copied Apple's device. Hopefully it will get fixed on appeal...but the current system is really good. Its got a lot to do with innovation and nothing to do with abusing a broken system to damage your competition and preventing new players from entering the field.
FTFY
I can tell what I said has fallen on deaf ears. If you look at the iPhone/3G/3GS and compare it to the Galaxy S or even the Galaxy S2 and to a lesser the GS3, they are indistinguishable in many respects. The black bezel, silver border meeting the case behind it, button at the bottom that brings you to your central screen, the list goes on and on. They weren't preventing new players from entering the field, they were forcing them to come up with their own designs instead of using Apple's as a way to trick people into buying their devices. It's like back in '06 when the dumb phones all started looking like BlackBerrys. This happens fairly often, and they were not abusing a system. I can tell that most people here are anti-patent. The question is why? I am also willing to bet that most of you who responded to my original post pirate music as well. You have to see the patent system and see Apple for what they are. If you think it is all right to blatantly copy someone else's design, by all means call the system broken and complain about how your favorite company got busted for shameless imitation.
I agree Samsung went too far with the GS3 buttons, but much of the rest, is just as rknize said, it's about stifling competition, and damaging your competitor.
I don't think you understood my argument about prior art, because you seem to think it's irrelevant. Yes, apple created something new with the Iphone, but it was all based on prior things, made into something new and revolutionary. Patents don't necessarily apply just because you used it in a slightly way (they can, but it depends).
Maybe you need to see what Apple actually was suing over...
When HTC was banned from importing phones, it had to do with clicking a link in a text message opening a browser... I kid you not. Can you honestly tell me you think THAT was revolutionary and needed to be protected and stop others from profiting from?
THAT is the kind of things they are suing each other over.
It's not some special feature Apple has, it's about basic operations, which have been used for years in similar systems.
I can tell what I said has fallen on deaf ears. If you look at the iPhone/3G/3GS and compare it to the Galaxy S or even the Galaxy S2 and to a lesser the GS3, they are indistinguishable in many respects. The black bezel, silver border meeting the case behind it, button at the bottom that brings you to your central screen, the list goes on and on. They weren't preventing new players from entering the field, they were forcing them to come up with their own designs instead of using Apple's as a way to trick people into buying their devices. It's like back in '06 when the dumb phones all started looking like BlackBerrys. This happens fairly often, and they were not abusing a system. I can tell that most people here are anti-patent. The question is why? I am also willing to bet that most of you who responded to my original post pirate music as well. You have to see the patent system and see Apple for what they are. If you think it is all right to blatantly copy someone else's design, by all means call the system broken and complain about how your favorite company got busted for shameless imitation.
Hardly. I have been following this lawsuit and several others with great interest. You yourself mentioned the design patent was just one part of this lawsuit. Yet here you use it as the crux of your counter-argument. I'm not even talking about the rectangle patent. Yeah...Samsung went too far there. I'm talking about all the other patents they used and are using. MS and the rest are all doing the same thing. You must not have been following the trial if you think it was about rectangles. The media fixated on that because it was absurd, but that was just one facet. Read the transcripts. The jury instructions were completely screwed up and the jury got totally confused. Then we learn that the foreman was making up his own rules and steering the jury based on his own patent experience. He even boasted about it in public. The jury didn't even follow the instructions they were given.
Now they are supposed to go on to damages. Damages for patents that are now invalidated by the PTO! The trial was completely solid? Please. The trial was a total loss.
[/quote]
I still have yet to see a source for all this, and, being a person of logic and rationality, I will not except your arguments until you prove that they are grounded in fact. I'm glad you admit that what Samsung did was unacceptable, though I find it hilarious that you say HTC was banned from importing phones. The suit was over multitouch, not just clicking a link. They settled and now license patents to each other. I have an HTC One right here next to me, though I can't help noticing that the speaker grills look an awful lot like those on the MacBook Pros...
The fact remains that Apple is not stifling any innovation. The Android market is healthier than ever before, and Samsung is still lining its pockets with the profits of phones that are designed to be confused for their Apple counterparts. That may not even be why they do it. They might do it because they figure that Apple's design works.
Apple is fine with sharing their inventions. They just don't like it when you grab them and use them without asking. Same with everything else. Apple does hold the patents for capacitative multi touch. If you can prove that Apple is suing unreasonably, I will certainly believe you and join your side. Until then, troll harder.
-
Proof? I READ THE COURT TRANSCRIPTS FROM PACER! If you don't know what that means, I cannot help you. You are clearly not willing to research this yourself, so there is not much point in arguing with you. If you don't know where to start, try groklaw:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=AppleSamsung
-
I still have yet to see a source for all this, and, being a person of logic and rationality, I will not except your arguments until you prove that they are grounded in fact.
You must not have been following very closely if you missed this, since it was ALL OVER tech news sites and non-tech news sites. Even Faux News covered it.
Though it doesn't immediately mention sms, the ban did apply to them as well as email.
The ban never really went into effect because HTC created a workaround before it caused import disruptions, except for a few phones.
"the ability to tap on a phone number or address contained in an email to immediately call the number or find the address on a map"
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/12/19/itc-sides-with-apple-in-patent-dispute-with-rival-htc/
Oh, and before you say they invented it, I could imbed Google Map links before, and the phone numbers thing, I had an address book program way back on Win 95 or 98 that could make the modem dial any phone number on a web page or anywhere else. PLENTY of prior art there. The only thing new, was they put it in a phone.
Here are just a few of the (literally) THOUSANDS of articles about this.:
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/HTC-Ban-ITC-Workaround-Apple-Patent-Lawsuit,news-13637.html
http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/05/29/htc.one.x.and.evo.4g.lte.on.the.way.to.stores/
http://gizmodo.com/5869507/htc-android-phones-are-being-banned-from-the-us-next-year
http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_android_phones_could_be_banned_from_the_us_next_year-news-3543.php
http://www.androidcentral.com/htc-found-violate-two-apple-patents-some-devices-will-be-banned-import-come-april-2012
-
I think we are the ones being trolled. Well played, kmac.
-
He also owns a Buggati Veyron. :))
-
I think we are the ones being trolled. Well played, kmac.
8 posts and no real work, I think you may be correct, sir.
-
He also owns a Buggati Veyron. :))
Yes, I saw that. I understand now.
-
He also owns a Buggati Veyron. :))
Yes, I saw that. I understand now.
I wonder if he missed the i and hit k instead and really wanted imacwannabe
-
He also owns a Buggati Veyron. :))
Yes, I saw that. I understand now.
I wonder if he missed the i and hit k instead and really wanted imacwannabe
I don't own an iMac, nor do I want one at the moment. I simply defend the truth, but I can see there are far too many people on here who will simply not listen to what I say. I have a custom built PC in a Thermaltake Commander MS-1 case with an i7-3770K overclocked to 4.5 gHz and watercooled. Leslieann, I find it almost comical that you cite Fox News as a source. They are a propaganda machine that Republicans jack off to, not a reliable source. Not to mention that they did violate a patent, though not just on opening a link in a browser. It was on converting links into actionable items that did over things, such as opening other apps. Besides the point, a patent is patent, no matter how small something it protects.
Also, if Apple is about stifling innovation, why have they only been suing companies that make things infringing on their smartphone patents? Beyond that, why haven't they sued everyone making something similar to them? Nokia? Geeksphone? Razer? Razer's gaming laptop is externally identical to a black MacBook, and they are also a relatively small company, but yet Apple has not sued them yet. And I apologize for looking like I have not done enough research, but if you could please point to a few lines on Groklaw where it indicates your points about the patents being invalidated? The case transcripts do not mention that most patent lawyers think the patents are a joke. Also, I know what happened in the case, but I wanted evidence that the PTO had invalidated the patents. Honestly, I don't get you people. Are you guys anti-patent or something? If you are, then I confess there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. Because the fact remains that Samsung copied TONS of design and technology for Apple, and if you are unwilling to admit to that, then you are a bigot and a fool.
There are a number of phone manufacturers that make Android phones that I can think of that Apple has not yet sued. Also, Apple has not yet been successfully sued against either. There is a serious problem with your argument. The fact is, the Judge in that trial held up an iPad and a Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, showed them all sides of it, and asked Samsung's lawyers if they could tell which one was which from where they were sitting. Guess what the answer was? NO!
-
Leslieann, I find it almost comical that you cite Fox News as a source. They are a propaganda machine that Republicans jack off to, not a reliable source. Not to mention that they did violate a patent, though not just on opening a link in a browser. It was on converting links into actionable items that did over things, such as opening other apps. Besides the point, a patent is patent, no matter how small something it protects.
I listed it as Faux News and I also listed half a dozen total referencing the same exact thing for that exact reason, so your argument is not only null, but completely B.S. on that front.
Second, a patent is not always a legal patent, and patent litigation isn't always about the patent.
Have you not seen the patent trolling going on, or read the history of SCO and Microsoft? Just because you are given a patent, it doesn't mean your patent will stand up in court, more than a few Apple patents have been thrown out in court. Overseas patents are even more dubious, in some places you only have to be first to patent something, doesn't matter if it's an existing technology.
If a "patents is a patent", there would be no need for litigation because it would obviously be cut and dry.
-
Leslieann, I find it almost comical that you cite Fox News as a source. They are a propaganda machine that Republicans jack off to, not a reliable source. Not to mention that they did violate a patent, though not just on opening a link in a browser. It was on converting links into actionable items that did over things, such as opening other apps. Besides the point, a patent is patent, no matter how small something it protects.
I listed it as Faux News and I also listed half a dozen total referencing the same exact thing for that exact reason, so your argument is not only null, but completely B.S. on that front.
Second, a patent is not always a legal patent, and patent litigation isn't always about the patent.
Have you not seen the patent trolling going on, or read the history of SCO and Microsoft? Just because you are given a patent, it doesn't mean your patent will stand up in court, more than a few Apple patents have been thrown out in court. Overseas patents are even more dubious, in some places you only have to be first to patent something, doesn't matter if it's an existing technology.
If a "patents is a patent", there would be no need for litigation because it would obviously be cut and dry.
It SHOULD be cut and dry. But apparently Samsung thinks they can just imitate Apple products and infringe their design patents like they don't exist, then try and put up a defense in court for it when it is evident without even seeing a design patent that they copied Apple's design. I understand patents. I also understand that the PTO does its job very poorly. Their website is a sham, and their entire line of work could be streamlined and done more effectively to the point where the current one's output is basically invalidated.
Edison forged an entire career off of patenting things other people invented. Because, common to popular belief, his 1000+ patents are mostly of other people's inventions that he stole.
I have seen patent trolling going on. I have also seen that Apple is not a patent troll, at least not in the most popular definition of the word. They have actual devices that you can walk into a store and buy that contain their technologies and design, whereas patent trolls are often devised of a few lawyers, a poorly designed website, no storefront, and a support number that never connects you to an actual person.
-
All we need is to get rid of current patent laws (or at least the system in 'murrica & Japan).
-
All we need is to get rid of current patent laws (or at least the system in 'murrica & Japan).
Anti-patent...just as I suspected. The reason we haven't implicated a better system as of yet is because we have yet to find a new one. If you can find a system that protects intellectual properties as well as eliminates patent trolls, the world will beat a path to your door.
-
There's no such thing as intellectual *property*. It has nothing to do with actual property¹. It's monopoly guaranteed by the government. What if we abandon this kind of monopoly?
¹ You wouldn't download a car... I would if I could.
-
It SHOULD be cut and dry.
{cut}
Edison forged an entire career off of patenting things other people invented. Because, common to popular belief, his 1000+ patents are mostly of other people's inventions that he stole.
I have seen patent trolling going on. I have also seen that Apple is not a patent troll, at least not in the most popular definition of the word. They have actual devices that you can walk into a store and buy that contain their technologies and design, whereas patent trolls are often devised of a few lawyers, a poorly designed website, no storefront, and a support number that never connects you to an actual person.
You say it should be cut and dry, them mention Edison, that sort of thing is exactly why it's not cut and dry. Companies purposely push the patent limits because it's profitable.
When Steve was running things, they almost never sued, he would rather out innovate than sue. However, you need to step back and realize that Steve's gone, and Apple is now run by investors and a bean counter just like every other major corporation and they are going to act just like every other corporation. Expect radical designs to taper off, and for them to become more and more like every other company as time marches on. These lawsuits are only an indicator of things to come.
Some patent trolls are just better than others. Edison is a good example, he is still held in high regard by many people. By the way, anyone see that good old SCO is back for more?
-
They will hopefully run out of money soon. That sad saga has gone on long enough.
-
There's no such thing as intellectual *property*. It has nothing to do with actual property¹. It's monopoly guaranteed by the government. What if we abandon this kind of monopoly?
¹ You wouldn't download a car... I would if I could.
It SHOULD be cut and dry.
{cut}
Edison forged an entire career off of patenting things other people invented. Because, common to popular belief, his 1000+ patents are mostly of other people's inventions that he stole.
I have seen patent trolling going on. I have also seen that Apple is not a patent troll, at least not in the most popular definition of the word. They have actual devices that you can walk into a store and buy that contain their technologies and design, whereas patent trolls are often devised of a few lawyers, a poorly designed website, no storefront, and a support number that never connects you to an actual person.
You say it should be cut and dry, them mention Edison, that sort of thing is exactly why it's not cut and dry. Companies purposely push the patent limits because it's profitable.
When Steve was running things, they almost never sued, he would rather out innovate than sue. However, you need to step back and realize that Steve's gone, and Apple is now run by investors and a bean counter just like every other major corporation and they are going to act just like every other corporation. Expect radical designs to taper off, and for them to become more and more like every other company as time marches on. These lawsuits are only an indicator of things to come.
Some patent trolls are just better than others. Edison is a good example, he is still held in high regard by many people. By the way, anyone see that good old SCO is back for more?
They began the suits while Steve Jobs was still the CEO. Edison didn't just infringe patents, he stole other people's ideas and patented them before they could. Apple has yet to do that. Also, they have Tim Cook as the CEO, who is a brilliant supply-chain manager, and they have always had investors. It's a consequence of being an IPO. Steve was not the catalyst of radical design, that would be the brilliant Jony Ive. Steve was never anything more than a micro manager. Apple still has a radical company structure and you can expect that to stay. I'm not worried, especially after seeing the new Mac Pro and iOS 7. I know, I know, Android had bubbles first. Actually, bubbles have been a constant Apple theme for a long time.
Davkol...call it what you may. Great red herring, by the way. I would download a car. As it is, I would buy a Samsung phone. But I prefer Apple devices for their build quality, and Samsung is rather corrupt. They control the South Korean economy and thus government. It's not monopoly guaranteed by the government. Again, have they sued Nokia? No. Have they sued Geeksphone? No. They only sue when their ideas are being stolen by those who do not wish to do their own work and simply piggyback on the profits of a company that spent years engineering a piece of technology only to have it subsequently stolen and sold. What's more, you don't present a logical alternative.
Would I let my dentist pull out all of my rotten teeth if he had no idea what to do afterwards? There's an analogy for you. The patent system is fine, it's just that they hired basses (if you know what I mean) to run the PTO and none of them know what they're doing. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on anything. There are plenty of smartphone manufacturers that haven't been sued yet, because they persevered and came up with their own design instead of copying Apples. Would you buy a colorswitch of a Warhol painting if you knew it wasn't licensed? Patents only last 20 years you know...and by then we probably will have postage stamp phones built into the smallest Bluetooth you could possibly imagine with light-refraction based holography as the display. And you can be sure that Apple will be the first to do it radically different, and then be followed by another pack of leeches trying to make a quick buck off of other people's hard work.
-
The patent war discussion has been moved here.
-
The PTO is part of the patent system. The PTO, the thing that grants patents into the patent system, is broken. Therefore the patent system, in the absence of any other formal definition in this argument, is broken. Established laws with respect to patents in general are not the problem. The problem is the astronomical cost it takes to kill one of these garbage patents that have already been granted. It is a tax on the entire industry and the only winners are the lawyers. It is killing innovation, not helping it. Thankfully, the PTO and ITC are starting to wake up...but at what cost?
Like many other companies, Apple has been granted many questionable patents. They have gone "thermonuclear" (in Steve's own words) against its competition. They are using junk patents to hurt their competition. They are not taking any moral high road here.
-
He also owns a Buggati Veyron. :))
Yes, I saw that. I understand now.
I wonder if he missed the i and hit k instead and really wanted imacwannabe
I don't own an iMac, nor do I want one at the moment. I simply defend the truth, but I can see there are far too many people on here who will simply not listen to what I say. I have a custom built PC in a Thermaltake Commander MS-1 case with an i7-3770K overclocked to 4.5 gHz and watercooled. Leslieann, I find it almost comical that you cite Fox News as a source. They are a propaganda machine that Republicans jack off to, not a reliable source. Not to mention that they did violate a patent, though not just on opening a link in a browser. It was on converting links into actionable items that did over things, such as opening other apps. Besides the point, a patent is patent, no matter how small something it protects.
Also, if Apple is about stifling innovation, why have they only been suing companies that make things infringing on their smartphone patents? Beyond that, why haven't they sued everyone making something similar to them? Nokia? Geeksphone? Razer? Razer's gaming laptop is externally identical to a black MacBook, and they are also a relatively small company, but yet Apple has not sued them yet. And I apologize for looking like I have not done enough research, but if you could please point to a few lines on Groklaw where it indicates your points about the patents being invalidated? The case transcripts do not mention that most patent lawyers think the patents are a joke. Also, I know what happened in the case, but I wanted evidence that the PTO had invalidated the patents. Honestly, I don't get you people. Are you guys anti-patent or something? If you are, then I confess there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. Because the fact remains that Samsung copied TONS of design and technology for Apple, and if you are unwilling to admit to that, then you are a bigot and a fool.
There are a number of phone manufacturers that make Android phones that I can think of that Apple has not yet sued. Also, Apple has not yet been successfully sued against either. There is a serious problem with your argument. The fact is, the Judge in that trial held up an iPad and a Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, showed them all sides of it, and asked Samsung's lawyers if they could tell which one was which from where they were sitting. Guess what the answer was? NO!
Because Samsung is the only one freight-training apple as of late. It's not hard to see the last act of a desperate company. It's also not hard to see the progress from the first smartphone Sammy released to now.
-
The concept that progress should be held back in the name of profit is disgusting. This world needs some more collaboration.
-
The concept that progress should be held back in the name of profit is disgusting. This world needs some more collaboration.
This. The entire patent system needs a reform.
-
The concept that progress should be held back in the name of profit is disgusting. This world needs some more collaboration.
This. The entire patent system needs a reform.
No it does not.
It is natural for power and technology to converge on leading firms..
Should the owners choose to abuse it.. that's another thing..
But if we alter the patent system to anything else... it would severely hamper innovation..
If you can't get rich off of doing something... You wouldn't be motivated to do it.. that is what the patent system affords.
And this is a necessity...
-
The concept that progress should be held back in the name of profit is disgusting. This world needs some more collaboration.
you're suggesting communism... this is the dream... but we know humans are too short lived and petty to pull it off..
If everyone had much longer life-spans... enough of them would come to the realization that collaboration is best... but because our lifespans are so short, we are pushed by nature to extract as much as possible.
-
The concept that progress should be held back in the name of profit is disgusting. This world needs some more collaboration.
This. The entire patent system needs a reform.
No it does not.
It is natural for power and technology to converge on leading firms..
Should the owners choose to abuse it.. that's another thing..
But if we alter the patent system to anything else... it would severely hamper innovation..
If you can't get rich off of doing something... You wouldn't be motivated to do it.. that is what the patent system affords.
And this is a necessity...
The patent system was put in place to protect original ideas. There's few ideas nowadays that are original. Most are just different ways of doing the same thing. The companies that exploit this and the patent system that allows it will only stifle innovation. As with everything else, money has ruined what was a good system.
-
I'm not saying to abolish the system entirely. But each case does need to be looked at more closely with the greater good in mind. And I also believe that patents hold too long under the current system. If they want to grant a patent for something as ridiculous as a shape, it shouldn't be valid for years and years.
-
Granting a temporary monopoly to an inventor is meant as a way for said party to recoup their investments and prevent a more-established player from stealing their idea. Patents generally do not hold back innovation. They promote it. When was the last time IBM invented anything? They just buy companies now. The market constantly needs new players to move us forward and patents provide a safety net so that these new players can hedge some risk. Saying people should just work together is papering over human nature.
The problem is that the established players abuse the system to acquire overly-broad patents on generalities or ideas that are trivial to anyone that practices an art. The PTO should not be granting patents like this, but there are a variety of factors that cause this. Some are:
- The PTO is flooded with applications and an examiner has to process so many applications per day.
- It less work for an examiner to grant a patent application than it is to try to reject one.
- Examiners do not spend enough time searching for prior art, especially in the technology field.
- Patent lawyers know how to word things just so to try to slip general concepts into claims on patents on real inventions.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that DNA sequences and genes are not patentable. That was another part of the technology landscape where the patent system was completely off the rails. Software is another one, but it is a more subtle problem and has more precedent that needs to be unraveled. There are finally signs that people are seeing the light, but it will be a long and slow process. Software engineers that I know agree that many of the patents we come into contact with do not help foster innovation. They are not for the greater good of society if they effectively prevent new products and devices from ever reaching them. They are a tax on our economy and the only real winners are the lawyers (and other countries that do not have to pay this tax).
-
Patents generally do not hold back innovation. They promote it.
That certainly isn't the case in the medical industry, cancer research in particular is extremely hampered by patents.
-
What patents? Treatment-related ones?
-
What patents? Treatment-related ones?
Testing and treatment.
Companies have were patenting genes until the supreme court struck them down the other day.
Angelina Jolie's breast cancer test cost $3-$5k just for the test because of the gene it identifies was under a patent. It's expected to drop by more than 2/3rds if that the patent is deemed invalid, however the company is claiming they didn't patent just the gene, but also the gene being tested outside of the body. So there is still questions about whether they still hold a patent on the whole thing or not.
Researchers are also avoiding certain research because access to the patents is so prohibitive and some of the patents are so broad that there is no way to work around them. This is in regards to testing, treatment and even limiting their creation of new drugs in the first place.
The race for these patents is also an issue.
Cancer researchers are not communicating because they see a bottomless pit of money if they find the cure first, because of this, they are often duplicating each others (failed work), which is why despite the billions put into cancer research, we have so little to show for it. It doesn't help that some of these researchers and foundations have found that it's an easy way to make money just by doing research, regardless of results. Komen is just one who has been accused of profiting from the research and collection of research funds.
The documentary "Pink Ribbons, Inc." details a lot of this.
-
What patents? Treatment-related ones?
Testing and treatment.
Companies have were patenting genes until the supreme court struck them down the other day.
Angelina Jolie's breast cancer test cost $3-$5k just for the test because of the gene it identifies was under a patent. It's expected to drop by more than 2/3rds if that the patent is deemed invalid, however the company is claiming they didn't patent just the gene, but also the gene being tested outside of the body. So there is still questions about whether they still hold a patent on the whole thing or not.
Researchers are also avoiding certain research because access to the patents is so prohibitive and some of the patents are so broad that there is no way to work around them. This is in regards to testing, treatment and even limiting their creation of new drugs in the first place.
The race for these patents is also an issue.
Cancer researchers are not communicating because they see a bottomless pit of money if they find the cure first, because of this, they are often duplicating each others (failed work), which is why despite the billions put into cancer research, we have so little to show for it. It doesn't help that some of these researchers and foundations have found that it's an easy way to make money just by doing research, regardless of results. Komen is just one who has been accused of profiting from the research and collection of research funds.
The documentary "Pink Ribbons, Inc." details a lot of this.
This is quite acceptible..
Cancer is a blight of an individual..
As a species.. Cancer rate is not nearly high enough to affect our continued existence..
-
This is quite acceptible..
Cancer is a blight of an individual..
As a species.. Cancer rate is not nearly high enough to affect our continued existence..
Tell that to your child.
-
he needs to make one first... which seems to be near impossible
-
Granting a temporary monopoly to an inventor is meant as a way for said party to recoup their investments and prevent a more-established player from stealing their idea. Patents generally do not hold back innovation. They promote it. When was the last time IBM invented anything? They just buy companies now. The market constantly needs new players to move us forward and patents provide a safety net so that these new players can hedge some risk. Saying people should just work together is papering over human nature.
The problem is that the established players abuse the system to acquire overly-broad patents on generalities or ideas that are trivial to anyone that practices an art. The PTO should not be granting patents like this, but there are a variety of factors that cause this. Some are:
- The PTO is flooded with applications and an examiner has to process so many applications per day.
- It less work for an examiner to grant a patent application than it is to try to reject one.
- Examiners do not spend enough time searching for prior art, especially in the technology field.
- Patent lawyers know how to word things just so to try to slip general concepts into claims on patents on real inventions.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that DNA sequences and genes are not patentable. That was another part of the technology landscape where the patent system was completely off the rails. Software is another one, but it is a more subtle problem and has more precedent that needs to be unraveled. There are finally signs that people are seeing the light, but it will be a long and slow process. Software engineers that I know agree that many of the patents we come into contact with do not help foster innovation. They are not for the greater good of society if they effectively prevent new products and devices from ever reaching them. They are a tax on our economy and the only real winners are the lawyers (and other countries that do not have to pay this tax).
I'm not saying to abolish the system entirely. But each case does need to be looked at more closely with the greater good in mind. And I also believe that patents hold too long under the current system. If they want to grant a patent for something as ridiculous as a shape, it shouldn't be valid for years and years.
Patents generally do not hold back innovation. They promote it.
That certainly isn't the case in the medical industry, cancer research in particular is extremely hampered by patents.
We're not talking about the medical industry... nice red herring though. Let's try to keep this topic on smartphones instead of patents is general, because I will admit that they are abused frequently. Apple is simply not an abuser, though. Any system can be abused. The system of capitalism is frequently abused, as is the system of democracy. If you can find a system that has not been nor can not be abused ever, than you will be the smartest person on the face of the earth.
I still have not seen one piece of evidence showing the patents to be too broad. What we have to remember here is that the one referring to the shape is a design patent, and design patents are allowed to protect unique shapes. Notice that the only one using a design with the same degree chamfer on the edges was the only one that got sued for infringing on the patents protecting the degree of that chamfer. Nokia has not done this, and Samsung is shying away from it as well. Nokia's rounded corners are much smaller and thus they do not infringe on Apple's design patent. What is also important to note is that the phone that Apple was suing for rounded corners over was the original Galaxy S. The SII and SIII and probably the SIV now were added over icon design and overall look and feel of the UI. If you look at the original Galaxy S, (and now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure they did this on the SII as well) you will find that the look is almost identical to the front of an iPhone. And don't say that's the only way to make one look: remember that not all Windows 8 phones have a central hardware button that brings you back to a central screen. Samsung even changed their design to something unique after losing both of their court cases. Look at how different the SIII looks from the SII. They brought in arching edges that interacted with the chamfers instead of being interrupted by them. Still a natural shape, even one that many people buy. I still have no reason to believe that Apple is abusing the system, as the devices they sued over had blatant imitation built into them. TouchWiz had icons that were almost identical in picture and completely identical in color usage to the Apple apps, and the buttons that opened them were using the exact same shape.
If GeekHack is a community where most people will simply ignore the fact that Samsung had and has products that blatantly copy Apple's design, then I'm not sure I want to be a part of it. If GeekHack is a community that thinks it was bad for Apple to sue over products that blatantly copied their design, then I'm still not sure I want to be a part of it. I'm not even anti-Android either. I'm simply anti-Samsung because they are actually becoming corrupt and when I buy an Android device, I want something unique and different, not just a KDE-style "customize ALL the things!!!" thrown on top of Apple's design. I expect Android to be a unique experience, not an Apple experience done poorly with nearly limitless customizability haphazardly squirted on top. You can't ignore the fact that Samsung copied Apple in many ways. What you can ignore, it seems, is the fact that it is reasonable and logical to litigate the people that copy you simply because they are too lazy to come up with their own design for something people will like. Samsung copied Apple because they
A.Knew Apple devices were popular, so made theirs look similar to try and confuse non-technologically savvy people into thinking they were buying an iPhone, or
B. Thought there was something inherently intuitive and good about Apple's design, (which there is) and decided it would be more cost effective to imitate it to give their users the same experience instead of paying designers to spend hours, days, months, or years coming up with a design that people would like as much.
What I really dislike is this whole image of Apple fanboyery around me. I'm sorry you think that, and it really shows ignorance on your part for thinking that because I am defending the truth I must be an Apple fanboy. The only Apple device I own is the iPhone, I don't own an iMac, I use a PC I custom built myself that is running Windows and Kubuntu. In case you seriously thought I meant to type imacwannabe, remember that this is a keyboard forum. I do genuinely aspire to owning a KMAC, and I am currently gathering and storing funds to do so to replace this BlackWidow. The whole concept of iSheep and the like didn't really exist before the iPhone. The iPhone was the most popular mobile device in the world, and that happened about two months after its launch in 2007. Apple had never made a mobile device before, so the throngs that went to an Apple store to get one were buying it because it was something they had never seen before. They had no inherent knowledge that it would work well, as it was their first mobile device. What happened thereafter with Android and TouchWiz is on the whole extremely disappointing to me. Android missed a great opportunity to allow their users to customize every aspect of the device, including the UI, but unfortunately Samsung thought it would be better to piggyback on the company that invented the market for such a device reasoning that it would make them more money.
-
We're not talking about the medical industry... nice red herring though. Let's try to keep this topic on smartphones instead of patents is general, because I will admit that they are abused frequently.
Of course, because then you would have to admit the whole patent system is flawed and that the same abusive tactics used in other industries are being used in smart phones as well, even by your beloved Apple.
You have done all you can to limit the conversation to the "Samsung stole the look of the Iphone" lawsuit, rather than all of them, because you are either an Apple fanboy or a troll, take your pick, but either way, I won't continue.
-
And yes, daerid, it does make it hard. What you just said is basically like saying "Hey, you stole my lunch money!" "You're right, I did! Let's work together to get lunch!"
No, it's more like "Hey, I'm going to sue you for selling fruit punch out of black and silver cups because I was selling lemonade out of black and silver cups first".
Apple did not want to work with other companies, and what you described has never even happened before with phones as far as I can tell. The iOS 7 changes were changes largely requested by users, and do not infringe on trade dress laws or anything because they are radically different in the way they look and function from their Android equivalents. I suppose Android invented the 3D depth illusion with the accelerometer? And I mean mainstream, no cyanogen or any custom ROMs.
Why were those changes requested by the user base? Because either a) they were so glaringly obvious that they should have been included in the first place, or b) the iOS users saw all their buddies with Android phones/jailbroken iPhones get these new features (whether they came from stock Android, a Jailbroken iPhone with Cydia, or a custom Android ROM is irrelevant in the eyes of the consumer). And to be perfectly honest, my first impression upon installing iOS 7 beta was "huh.. this looks a lot like Windows Phone and some of the newer Android phones). I hadn't even seen the WWDC presentation at that point. So don't tell me they're "radically different in the way they look and function from their Android equivalents", because that's just hogwash.
3D faux-parallax responding to the Accelerometer? Of course they didn't take that from Android. But Android had live wallpapers first (starting with the Nexus One, I believe), which are just inspired from the stuff you've been able to do in Windows and Linux for a while now (animated wallpapers). And iOS7's "new" wallpaper is just another form of animated wallpaper that just happens to respond to a sensor in the phone. Nothing new or innovative there (but still kinda neat).
-
And yes, daerid, it does make it hard. What you just said is basically like saying "Hey, you stole my lunch money!" "You're right, I did! Let's work together to get lunch!"
No, it's more like "Hey, I'm going to sue you for selling fruit punch out of black and silver cups because I was selling lemonade out of black and silver cups first".
Wow, for this scenario, this has gotta be the best analogy EVER!
-
Kmac, you keep coming back to the one design patent. That was only a small facet of one of many lawsuits. You clearly are not well read in the patent issue at all and totally fail to make counter arguments to any of the issues brought up by me and by others. Several of Apples worthless patents in that particular lawsuit have been reexamined by the PTO and rejected. What more evidence do you need? Your attempts to flip your obvious fanboyism and blindness into our ignorance are poorly veiled. I can't figure out if you are a lawyer, a troll, a simple fanboy, or some combination of the three.
-
Kmac, you keep coming back to the one design patent. That was only a small facet of one of many lawsuits. You clearly are not well read in the patent issue at all and totally fail to make counter arguments to any of the issues brought up by me and by others. Several of Apples worthless patents in that particular lawsuit have been reexamined by the PTO and rejected. What more evidence do you need? Your attempts to flip your obvious fanboyism and blindness into our ignorance are poorly veiled. I can't figure out if you are a lawyer, a troll, a simple fanboy, or some combination of the three.
I am not a fanboy! I really think you need to step back here and take a look at what you see. Thanks for suspecting I was a lawyer though, (it's not the first time, though me being a lawyer is illegal due to unfortunate age restrictions.)
I'm not trying to flip my "fanboyism" into your ignorance. The problem is, every argument you have given so far has been
A. Innacurate
B. Nonsensical if redacted back to the cruxes of all your main points
C. Irrelevant
And while I do not really understand your position, the fact remains that without the assurance of profit within a certain time field, there is no incentive for innovation besides reveling in your own brilliance, which gets old very quickly.
I apologize if my argument about Edison was poorly worded. As far as I am concerned, it is cut and dry with him. The only reason it is not is because we can't actually see which things he invented and which were picked up from those in his company. We can look at the history, and find a blurry picture of what he did not invent. However, just because we cannot be sure today that he invented or did not invent the object described by patent x, does not mean that everyone in his company and possibly those outside knew what he was doing at the time during which he was doing it. I do not condone what Edison did, though I also think it is a poor analogy to Apple.
Daerid, although I see the point you are trying to make, the problem is is that your analogy provides a reason to sue. It does, however, abstract the ideas enough that it may simplify our points so that we can understand each others'. If I wanted to drink Lemonade, but I bought your fruit punch because it looked superficially like the lemonade due to the cup, then that is a chunk out of Lemonade's profits. And while I might still cough up the nominal fee to replace my Fruit Punch with lemonade, do you seriously think I would be fine with the fact that I bought fruit punch by accident because of its similarities to the way the Lemonade was displayed?
As I see that analogy is probably exceedingly rare in the smartphone industry, it is more common with the elderly and less technologically inclined when the facade of a device is darn near indistinguishable from the facade of another.
If you mean to suggest that Fruit Punch used silver and black cups by accident, you are wrong as well. I saw and used both Lemonade's and Fruit Punch's cups. You see, Lemonade's cups were black with silver inlay around the rim and a black lid with two vents opposite the mouth opening, 1/4" apart. Fruit Punch's, (which one must remember appeared later) had the same silver inlay going in the opposite direction, but their lid was black with vents opposite the mouth opening 3/8" apart. To a person who is not a connoisseur of roadside beverage cups, the two may look indistinguishable. It is unclear why Fruit Punch made their cups so similar to Lemonade's, but their are only two options which end up benefiting Fruit Punch and only Fruit Punch:
A. Fruit Punch thought that their cups might be mistaken for Lemonade's, and knowing Lemonade's were popular, they used a design very similar to Lemonade's in order to trick people into thinking they were buying Lemonade.
B. Fruit Punch thought that Lemonade's design was simply one that was universally appealing to the average consumer of roadside juice drinks, seeing as Lemonade had spent so long developing it.
If you can come up with a C in which Fruit Punch is not trying to take advantage of Lemonade's efforts, I think that it will be a relief for all of us and an end to this back and forth discussion. It is nothing but sheer naivety to hide behind a wall and say that Fruit Punch's design is innovation when it is barely different from Lemonade's. Saying that Lemonade is stifling innovation by ensuring their right to profit (the incentive for the time and money spent in their innovation of drink cup manufacturing and design) by seeking money for all the people that bought Fruit Punch by mistake or because it was simply more entropy in an already confusing world of personality.
Note: I did not buy Lemonade, I inherited it when Lime was released.
Note Addendum: I do not see the cup as an extension of my personality that must be defended as my dignity must. I see the cup as a tool for accomplishing a task, and when another cup manufacturer starts making cheap knockoffs of my tool and selling them for a lower price, I get angry, especially when there are people on that cup manufacturer's side saying that their knockoff is innovation. It's not innovation, it's mimicry. Mimicry feeds off of the success of another species' evolutionary adaptations. I also strongly dislike being called a troll, as I am not trying to stir up debate, but rather use the collective knowledge of geekhack as a tool for exploring the semantics of a question. When the answer is not clear, I try to make it so, and am not always effective in doing so. I thank you, Daerid, for your invention of this analogy which I hope will help both of us to further understand the nature of this conundrum.
-
without the assurance of profit within a certain time field, there is no incentive for innovation besides reveling in your own brilliance, which gets old very quickly.
Einstein, Hawking, BP (see Venture Research Unit), CERN, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera?
-
without the assurance of profit within a certain time field, there is no incentive for innovation besides reveling in your own brilliance, which gets old very quickly.
Einstein, Hawking, BP (see Venture Research Unit), CERN, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera?
Einstein innovated during war time to make a horrible device that he himself hated to stop a war machine. BP dumped a crap ton of oil into the Gulf Stream undoubtedly killing millions of innocent creatures and harming many more. The fact that they do good things to some extent with their money does not outweigh this easily avoided failure. Hawking is a genius physicist who has not created a product. CERN is an international scholarly organization. Your reply is honestly a red herring unless you replace those etceteras with companies that actually patent products and mass-manufacture them to sell to the world market. Otherwise, your statement is like declaring that innovation is driven by discovery (which it is) but only the companies that make actual money off of that discovery are the bad ones.
-
Amongst the worst patents I have had the displeasure of working with have originated from Cupertino. I mean seriously "pinch to zoom", "bounce back", "swipe to unlock" and the worst was on clickable areas and binary flags? I mean have you guys seen the inventors on some of these patents? All they do is write code and Apple patents.
The entire USPTO needs a shake up, software is not patentable! You guys over in the US keep handing out software patents, EU thinks oh because US granted, it must be legit, company sues and what happens? Spends millions only to lose, hamper innovation and just to add insult to injury, have the patent revoked in the jurisdictions they decide to prosecute! Most of these patents would not have come to fruition without some serious lobbying.
Granted Samsung, HTC and others are ripping a lot from Apple but some things just don't work, I.e. in a design patent Apple lays claim to rectangular device, I mean what other shape can a smartphone have? The obviousness is sometimes grossly overlooked.
Don't take this the wrong way, I'm pro patents, if done correctly they foster innovation and commerce ultimately leading to progress and prosperity.
Ultimately competition is healthy, keeps you on your toes and result in best value for consumers. I wish I had an alternative to google and gmail but nothing I've tried is good enough. I'm glad I can choose between smartphones, I love my Note2 as my smartphone yet I can't stand to use a tablet other than my ipad mini.
-
Amongst the worst patents I have had the displeasure of working with have originated from Cupertino. I mean seriously "pinch to zoom", "bounce back", "swipe to unlock" and the worst was on clickable areas and binary flags? I mean have you guys seen the inventors on some of these patents? All they do is write code and Apple patents.
The entire USPTO needs a shake up, software is not patentable! You guys over in the US keep handing out software patents, EU thinks oh because US granted, it must be legit, company sues and what happens? Spends millions only to lose, hamper innovation and just to add insult to injury, have the patent revoked in the jurisdictions they decide to prosecute! Most of these patents would not have come to fruition without some serious lobbying.
Granted Samsung, HTC and others are ripping a lot from Apple but some things just don't work, I.e. in a design patent Apple lays claim to rectangular device, I mean what other shape can a smartphone have? The obviousness is sometimes grossly overlooked.
Don't take this the wrong way, I'm pro patents, if done correctly they foster innovation and commerce ultimately leading to progress and prosperity.
Ultimately competition is healthy, keeps you on your toes and result in best value for consumers. I wish I had an alternative to google and gmail but nothing I've tried is good enough. I'm glad I can choose between smartphones, I love my Note2 as my smartphone yet I can't stand to use a tablet other than my ipad mini.
Everything you listed there as unpatentable was a major innovation that was the prime allure of the device. It's intuitive.
Software isn't patentable? You just lost all of your credibility there. As a developer myself, I can tell you that it takes a long time to make something unique and different that accomplishes an old task in a new way. Suppose if I could code a script that could recode itself in a slightly different way every time. The changes would be random, and most would be unsuccessful. But for the one in a million that was unique and excellent and never before seen by man, the one that I could make a living off of if I were to sell it, I don't have a right to it? I don't understand your meaning.
-
Don't bring up old threads.
You lost this argument when you left for a month.
A good argument/discussion is fine, but I won't let you troll a discussion, let it sit for a month and then try to restart it whenever you feel like it are bored. And yes, I have noticed that it's pretty much all you here and I'm betting it's all you plan to do here, so consider it a friendly warning.