Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,294
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I can understand companies patenting stuff they've created.
Apple vs Samsung, court orders Samsung to show Apple 5 new phones
- Thread starter mrk
- Start date
I can understand companies patenting stuff they've created.
And you can't understand trying to patent something that hasn't been patent?
It's called money, companies revolve around it. It's as simple as that.
And what do you cll not created? You do realize most of the software patents isn't just the UI, it's mainly. Down to the underlying processes. Which is why you can have same output, if the underlying process is different.
Yup, ignore list is great especially for this thread
Glaucus is Apple's and window's "white knight", you can't post a negative opinion on either of them (even if it is true) otherwise, well you know............
You can post plenty of negative coments about them and I won't bat an eyelid, as many are true.
There's a difference. Between comments that stand to reason and comments that don't.
For example Ms have massively ***** up in many areas in the last 6 years. Mainly about totally missing the mobile sector and not predicting the future, then putting all their efforts into a great Os, but should have had a stop gap and a stop gap that was far better than their mobile phone only stop gap.
And it's not like I like everything about apple products. Ack of file managment **** me off no end and lack of ad support is annoying.
I use what suits me best at any point in time. And I have all three apple, Ms and android.
People just think I you defend something you must be a blind fan boy. It's far from that.
Last edited:
I think that's a bit unfair on Glaucus, he's making what are relatively fair points.
It's quite boring seeing the same regurgitated nonsense over and over again (sometimes from the same people). The patent system is there for businesses and Apple are using it. They are not abusing it, it's just obviously quite powerful if you use it correctly - and quite clearly, very flawed.
All companies do it, perhaps not quite to this extent, but it appears that Apple are just better at it. Unfortunately this just gives the Apple haters another platform to preach from, but ultimately they don't really matter because they don't like Apple anyway.
Seeing people miss the point repeatedly is mildly amusing but also slightly irritating.
It's quite boring seeing the same regurgitated nonsense over and over again (sometimes from the same people). The patent system is there for businesses and Apple are using it. They are not abusing it, it's just obviously quite powerful if you use it correctly - and quite clearly, very flawed.
All companies do it, perhaps not quite to this extent, but it appears that Apple are just better at it. Unfortunately this just gives the Apple haters another platform to preach from, but ultimately they don't really matter because they don't like Apple anyway.
Seeing people miss the point repeatedly is mildly amusing but also slightly irritating.
I wouldn't really agree on either. Other companies have over 6000 patent cases, compared to apples minuscule amount. Other companies I would argue have been just as sucsefull. But as they aren't apple they haven't made the news in the same way or tehir items arent so mainstream so people dont notice. But that is kind of apples fault, for being such media whores. It's not just the good stuff that will make the news, it's everything.
Problem is Glaucus not every company is suing the ass of off everyone else based on those 6000 patents are they ?
Look how many patent infringements Apple have claimed over the last couple of years.
Now show me how many things they genuinely invented in that timeframe.
Patents were meant to protect the IP of inventors, not those who just happened to register an idea. The system is broken and Apple are taking full advantage and being massively hypocritical at the same time.
Look how many patent infringements Apple have claimed over the last couple of years.
Now show me how many things they genuinely invented in that timeframe.
Patents were meant to protect the IP of inventors, not those who just happened to register an idea. The system is broken and Apple are taking full advantage and being massively hypocritical at the same time.
That's one company, with 6000 patent cases, apple has circa 250 cases. So yes they are very much comparable and apple are small fry in the grand scheme of patent wars. However in the mobile market they have the strongest patent portfolio. Others have far larger portfolios but they're generally FRAND or older patents which aren't so relevant in smart phone era.
All this information can be found in this thread.
It doesn't really matter what laws where built for. Its what laws enforce and the only people you can blame for that is the law makers. As I've saiid before I don't like the patent laws, but that's what we have. You can't complain abut any company using the law to their advantage.
If you realy want to see patent wars, check out the medical/drug industry.
Last edited:
As I said - It's the patenting and subsequent suing of concepts that the patent holder did not invent in the first place I have an issue with.
I would be happy for people to show me a couple of patents within the same industry as Apple/Samsung that other companies are doing the same with.
Sure, the USPO should not have granted some of the patents but does this really absolve Apple (or others) of all culpability in applying for patents they know that they have no legitimate right to and then subsequently suing people for said patents?
^^^ Genuine question ^^^
Another 2 questions I would like answered are:
1. Why they are not taking on Google's Android system given that some of the alleged infractions are actually a characteristic of the OS, not the handset?
2. Why are Google not taking a more active role in what will inevitably impact their product(s) in the long term?
Two reasons, android prefers to go through its partners and have actually coerced it's partners to take apple to court as android doest want to. They even transferred patents to their partners. So they are taking an extremly active roll, just an undercover one. So they can keep there image.
As to why apple don't take google on directly, android isn't selling the phones, so not much point.
And yes it absolves apple Its the patent system that is wrong and yes other do exactly the same.
It's also not just the us patent office, even the uk/eu patent system is rubbish, as is most of the worlds.
Do you ever read the patents, do you understand which parts of it makes the patent.its like the whole apple console patent. The title is misleading to say the least, the actual patent is very clever and hasn't been done before, in the way the patent protects.
How about
Googles eye tracking patent. They certainly didn't invent eye tracking. But becuase it's a different use, they can patent it. Mainly eye tracking to operate a mobile phone OS. It's the details of a patent that is important, not the title.
So do you know hate google for patenting stuff they didn't create? Somehow I doubt it.
As to why apple don't take google on directly, android isn't selling the phones, so not much point.
And yes it absolves apple Its the patent system that is wrong and yes other do exactly the same.
It's also not just the us patent office, even the uk/eu patent system is rubbish, as is most of the worlds.
Do you ever read the patents, do you understand which parts of it makes the patent.its like the whole apple console patent. The title is misleading to say the least, the actual patent is very clever and hasn't been done before, in the way the patent protects.
How about
Googles eye tracking patent. They certainly didn't invent eye tracking. But becuase it's a different use, they can patent it. Mainly eye tracking to operate a mobile phone OS. It's the details of a patent that is important, not the title.
So do you know hate google for patenting stuff they didn't create? Somehow I doubt it.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,693
- Location
- London
Personally I have mixed feelings about this whole thing, I think it is very smart off apple to patent everything. However on the other hand some of the patents they hold are just stupid and it is clearly aimed at stopping other companies from making anything good and not to protect IP, things like default iconography I think is just crazy :S.
I think the current idea of being a patent troll is getting way out of hand, if you look pass this whole apple vs samsung case there is HUGE companies that just get patents and wait for people to take to court. I think there really is a big problem and it is scary times for start-ups and inventors alike who theres patents were made to protect in the first place.
I think the current idea of being a patent troll is getting way out of hand, if you look pass this whole apple vs samsung case there is HUGE companies that just get patents and wait for people to take to court. I think there really is a big problem and it is scary times for start-ups and inventors alike who theres patents were made to protect in the first place.
Software patents in the US do allow you to do stuff like Apple are doing. They have every legal right to the patents they hold.
That fact is half the problem. Some of the patents that Apple hold in the US would not be granted here.
Far as your questions go - Google don't own Android and don't make any (direct) money from it. So why would they get involved ? the phone manufacturers do make money from their handsets. Don't forget that the manufacturers modify Android with their own launchers etc, therefore what is released on a phone is a product of the manufacturer, not Android.
Far as Google getting involved if I remember correctly they gave HTC some patents to help fight a court case somewhere, I forget the details.
But again this isn't apple only.
How about Goggle eye tracking patent. You telling me google invented eye tracking? it's the details of the patent, not the title that is important.
Again it's pretty shocking that people think apple are doing something different.
Or googles patent on switching from human driver to self drive in cars. Did google really think off tthat idea?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,693
- Location
- London
I know, if you look outside of these apple and google and so on there much worse companies who buy patents and then lie in wait for innocent people to infringe by mistake, then they take them to court. Its all horrid.
From my understand when you make a software patent it is meant to be something very very detailed, that it should be difficult for someone even in the industry to understand it let alone us.
Be interesting if they did take them on. Still not sure why Apple have not tackled Google on their Nexus phones which Google were selling directly....
You keep saying others do the same but on a couple of occasions I have asked for examples where companies in the same field have done this yet I have not seen any
Yes, I read the patents themselves and not just the titles. In fact in this very thread I put examples of patents which have been granted which indicates I do read them.
Simmer down. Do yourself the favour of at least reading my posts properly to understand where I am coming from. I'll help you out - My issue is companies patenting concepts which they have not invented and then suing other companies for using them.... If Google are guilty of this then my point still stands and I am sure you can show me an example where Google are actively suing a company for using a concept they patented but did not invent.
Why do they have to sue, They are patening such things they have not "invnented" in your terms. These products aren't mainstream yet, just like most of apples patents were submitted years ago when smartphons weren't mainstream.
What do you think gogles patening them for, fun and giggles? Of course they will sue, just like all companies sue. You just need to wait a few years for googles patents to become usefull. It would not surprise me in the next 5-10 years for google to have the strongest patent folio.
It's not exactly easy to find out latest case specific info when it's not plastered over the main news.
For example Nokia owns a lot of wifi patents, that it clearly didn't invented wifi and are suing google and others, but its not as easy as saying that, as it depends on what the patent says as well as patent are traded, so its hard to trace who original patented it. Unless again, it's plastered all over the news.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,693
- Location
- London
Why do they have to sue, They are patening such things they have not "invnented" in your terms. These products aren't mainstream yet, just like most of apples patents were submitted years ago when smartphons weren't mainstream.
What do you think gogles patening them for, fun and giggles? Of course they will sue, just like all companies sue. You just need to wait a few years for googles patents to become usefull. It would not surprise me in the next 5-10 years for google to have the strongest patent folio.
It's not exactly easy to find out latest case specific info when it's not plastered over the main news.
For example Nokia owns a lot of wifi patents, that it clearly didn't invented wifi and are suing google and others, but its not as easy as saying that, as it depends on what the patent says as well as patent are traded, so its hard to trace who original patented it. Unless again, it's plastered all over the news.
Life would be much easier if instead of sueing they could just agree on a good price for all these things, some patents are stupid, but others have actual merit and I believe you shouldn't be allowed to keep these to yourself for such a long time. I think the software patents last for 20years which is forever in software terms, anything over 3 years is just crazy at the speed software has been advancing.
What usually happens in these cases, company x/y will appeal and then we start all over again with Apple trying to lay claim to the rectangle with rounded edges.