Problem is Google has not been granted a patent on notification bars of yet. You can't use that as an example in court when no one has a patent on it currently. And not to mention this is Samsung vs. Apple not Google vs. Apple. It's about what in TouchWiz, not stock Android.
Battle of the ludicrous patent claims: Apple vs Samsung vs Apple
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
- Status
Problem is Google has not been granted a patent on notification bars of yet. You can't use that as an example in court when no one has a patent on it currently. And not to mention this is Samsung vs. Apple not Google vs. Apple. It's about what in TouchWiz, not stock Android.
Well, Apple has been weaning themselves of Samsung for the past few years (screens/memory) plus the two samsungs are more or less treated as separate entities.
Sounds like Apple's lawyers are asleep at the wheel. That's something they should have been objecting left and right. The lawyer is not on the stand. As far as I know the lawyers can do that type of questioning.
e: Oh wait I just remembered, Koh only allowed two objections per witness! What a shitty trial for all.
The lawyer was being very clever by illustrating that you can actually scroll with two fingers. Yes it's part of the pinch to zoom function, but it still allows for a two finger scroll if you don't pan out.
----
So apparently Google is passing around their lawyers to all these patent battles.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...th-support-is-buoying-samsung-in-apple-fight/
A blight on computing? Please.
The reason why consumer friendly touchscreen smartphones are as good as they are now is because apple took the risk and made the iPhone and proved there was a market. No other company was making big changes with UI on portable devices and smartphones were crap
A little perspective might help you.
Totally.
Just stop reading The Verge. They're the epitome of lipstick on a pig for internet journalism.
I don't think so. They have actual observers at the trial, and have 2-3 lawyers on staff. Including one that actually practices IP law (Matt Macari).
tfur
Member
Yes, a blight on computing. Just because you cannot see it, and are willing to be a continual apologist for anything Apple is not surprising.
As for perspective... It's my personal history with decades of both personal and professional computing that gives me my perspective.
You really think that'll last if they win this case? Just looking at that document they sent to Samsung, a huge number of those patents basically apply to almost any computing device. One of them is for an object oriented wrapper around system calls filed in *2004*. You realize WinRT is basically a giant object oriented wrapper around system calls, right?
Whatever Apple is saying in this trial you can bet WinPhone will be next. And if it's not, it's probably just because of that cross-licensing agreement they were basically forced to sign in the late 90s in order to not die.
Oh please. Huge risk my ass. They took the same risk any company does in bringing a new product to market in an established and existing field. That doesn't afford them extra protection as some white knight champion preventing anyone from bringing to market similar products.
Apple and Microsoft have a patent cross-license agreement dating to 1997. They don't sue each other anymore. They team up to buy patents together.
http://corporate.findlaw.com/contra...urchase-agreement-apple-computer-inc-and.html
(Section 5.6)
You did see my last paragraph, right?
Unfortunately I've never seen a copy of the actual cross-licensing agreement (that is referred to in the stock purchase as Exhibit A and B). Who knows when it ends, how it ends, what exactly it covers. I agree it's likely why they haven't (which makes their "but look at windows phone!" pretty disingenuous), but I think Apple resents it and will probably eventually seek a way out of it if it doesn't have an explicit sunset.
So, you agree they won't go after Microsoft. Why go through all the trouble of implying things like, "you can bet they'll go after MS. You really think they won't?"
If they were the first to do it on mobile phones(which probably isnt the case either) then that means they invented it.
At least thats what some people in this thread are telling me.
It seems they are fine with the current situation. Look at the Nortel patent sale, Microsoft contributed a sum of money, but Apple took ownership of most of the patents and extended a cross-license to the other. They seem to be doing the same for the Kodak sale of patents.
I don't see any comfortable situation lasting if MS continues to push into phones and tablets.
Again, though, it doesn't matter. Either Apple will eventually become frustrated with it and break it off (as they have now with their earlier associations with Google and seem to be attempting to do with Samsung), or it will continue happy-go-lucky and it's the real reason Apple keeps propping it up as a form of 'legitimate' competition as opposed to the evil copycats at Samsung.
I'm not using it as an argument for id trial or against Apple. All I'm saying is that sometimes the competition has the best solution implemented, and examining what they have is a part of e process to improve your own product.
I don't believe we'll see any lawsuits over notification center even if the patent gets approved.
I think they won't sue because of the cross licence agreement, but it doesn't mean that their patents aren't being infringes by WP. The keep referring to it because they won't sue, not because they don't actually infringe their bullshit patents.
Well, we'll probably see it come up in a counter-suit if/when Apple sues Google directly. Especially if the patent is granted by then.
I'm sorry for being this dense, but could someone please explain that document from apple, where they show what Samsung (and it seems Android itself) is doing that is harming Apple.
I've read everything that has been written here and that document back and forth, but I'm not really sure I understand it.
From what I think I've understood, Apple has patents on smartphone design and function? Is that correct?
And as it seems Android (and Samsung) copied the same functions without paying royalties to Apple?
Can a company have patents over stuff like multitasking (in this example on smartphones?) and others are not allowed to use it without paying to the patent holder (Apple)?
Does the same apply to PC OS? The GUI and using a mouse and keyboard?
What am i misunderstanding here, please help a fella out...
PS! This is not a joke, I'm not sure if this document says what I think it's saying...
I've read everything that has been written here and that document back and forth, but I'm not really sure I understand it.
From what I think I've understood, Apple has patents on smartphone design and function? Is that correct?
And as it seems Android (and Samsung) copied the same functions without paying royalties to Apple?
Can a company have patents over stuff like multitasking (in this example on smartphones?) and others are not allowed to use it without paying to the patent holder (Apple)?
Does the same apply to PC OS? The GUI and using a mouse and keyboard?
What am i misunderstanding here, please help a fella out...
PS! This is not a joke, I'm not sure if this document says what I think it's saying...
I'm sorry for being this dense, but could someone please explain that document from apple, where they show what Samsung (and it seems Android itself) is doing that is harming Apple.
I've read everything that has been written here and that document back and forth, but I'm not really sure I understand it.
From what I think I've understood, Apple has patents on smartphone design and function? Is that correct?
And as it seems Android (and Samsung) copied the same functions without paying royalties to Apple?
Can a company have patents over stuff like multitasking (in this example on smartphones?) and others are not allowed to use it without paying to the patent holder (Apple)?
Does the same apply to PC OS? The GUI and using a mouse and keyboard?
What am i misunderstanding here, please help a fella out...
PS! This is not a joke, I'm not sure if this document says what I think it's saying...
A patent is a claim, not a guarantee. Apple *claims* to have invented all the things in that document, and the limited research the USPTO does (because it's woefully understaffed) granted and registered their claim. They need to be proven in a court of law to have any real legitimacy, though.
Apple tried to claim a patent on the GUI back in the 80s and sued Microsoft over it. They lost pretty much all their claims in terms of MS' infringement and a few years later settled the dregs for money, a stock investment, and a cross-licensing agreement.
This trial has more to do with trade dress, which are ornamental features of a product that indicate its manufacturer/designer.
The apple apologists in here make me I'll.. Break out of your fan boy trance for a few minutes and see the bigger picture. Do you honestly think those ridiculous generic patents are a good thing? This will not only hurt Samsung , it will affect the whole industry eventually. Do you really want a single company with total control over the industry.. Absolute stupidity.
Ok, but if it gets decided that Apple has/owns a patent, does that then mean that others need to pay them for stuff like using fingers to navigate the phone?
And you said that they tried to do this with MS and failed, but why? Because someone else was first/owns the patent?
And if the battle is about trade dress, why submit this thing with all the claims about Apple owning everything that seems to do with how a smartphone works (what a smartphone is)?
Great talk.
There's two ways to deal with patents. You can pay the owner of the patent for using it, or you can challenge it for it being obvious/pre-existing and have it declared as invalid.
Smaller companies choose the former cause it costs them less. The latter requires either a trial after the owner comes after you, or you submitting to the USPTO that they look over the patents closer and provide prior art/proof that it's invalid.
The trial is multi faceted. There's trade dress, dress patents, and functional patents.
Trade Dress - Rounded Corners in the Icons
Dress Patetnt - Rounded Rectangular Phones and Flush Screens
Functional Patents - Bounce back effect in lists / Pinch to Zoom
The slideshow they sent to samsung has nothing to do with this case, though I think a couple of those things are bundled into it as well. It's just a general scaremongering document that was sent to try to convince Samsung to pay royalties.
And yes, if Apple's patents are held up companies would have to pay licensing fees to use them, or if they're not absolutely essential then Apple can refuse to let them use them.
As for Apple v. Microsoft, I direct you to Wikipedia
And is it the courts that decide if a patent is valid or not?
As some of this stuff seems really stupid to me (and ofc I seem very stupid to people who understand all this) as it (the document) seems to point out that Apple owns the way smartphones work/are used, so they should get some money of all Android phones.
And why did they not take Google to court but just Samsung? As they clearly state in the document that it's Android and through Android so does Samsung. Is it just because they are a working partner with Apple?
Haven't watched the talk yet but I recognize the name is of the guy who did Everything is a Remix which I had linked to before, and I highly recommend to anyone.
Thanks for the added info and wiki link (although I already searched it up, very interesting read).
But the patent (claims) from the document seem unreal, they feel like (if valid) that they own a product entirely.
Is there such a thing for example a console, a pc, a tv or anything else? A product of a type that you are not allowed to build without paying a cost to the "original inventor"? I don't know if I'm explaining this any good...
Could be the courts, if it happens during a trial. Otherwise it's up to the USPTO to declare it invalid. In this case both Samsung and Apple are asking the court to invalidate the other's patents(some not all I think). Google, as awell as other companies routinely ask the USPTO to invalidate patents.
The problem with the patents that Apple has claim to is that some of them are basically computer stuff, but on a mobile device. So it's considered a "new" patent.
Google doesn't make money directly from Android, so if someone tries to go after Google they'll get.....zero royalties and just penalties for infringement, which is alot less. They lawyers would cost them more than what they would win. Oracle tried this and they lost, big.
Next best thing is to go after one of the companies directly selling and profiting from products. Also to note, is that Apple is looking to remove Samsung as a competitor, and not just get royalty money. Some will disagree with that, though.
Thanks a bunch, makes so much more sense now.
Just because they have lawyers on staff doesn't mean their reporting is superior. I've received better coverage from twitter, for crying out loud.
Also, the ludicrous claims on that document clearly show they weren't seeking a fair licensing fee. They were trying to neuter Samsung.
They team up on patent stuff because of a deal that kept Apple out of Chapter 11 in 1997. If you think it's some kind of altruistic joint venture I've got a bridge to sell you.
Also lawl at the idea that neither company would turn on the other if MS started making inroads on phones or tablets. This is serious business and MS has no interest in allowing iOS to be the only player in the smart phone market. Right now it's convenient, but it won't always be.
Also all of this is beside the point I was trying to make and basically pointless fanwankery.
Pretending that the original iPhone wasn't a huge risk is revisionist history. That so many (particularly other industry players and analysts) were more than happy to proclaim it a huge mistake at the outset is a good indication of that.
Your second statement has nothing to do with the comment you quoted. It's also a little unfortunate that mods are throwing around stuff like 'white knight champion' into the discussion to really shit it up.
Forbes Live Notes from Friday:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briancaulfield/2012/08/10/apple-samsung-trial-continues-live-notes/
Haven't read through them but they appear much more robust than what the dude form silicon valley phoned in.
Already much better, haha.
Fuck that. That's not an invention.
I'm such a dork for wanting the rest of that questioning.
lol
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briancaulfield/2012/08/10/apple-samsung-trial-continues-live-notes/
Haven't read through them but they appear much more robust than what the dude form silicon valley phoned in.
Already much better, haha.
Fuck that. That's not an invention.
I'm such a dork for wanting the rest of that questioning.
lol
There are two kinds of 'risk' to be talked about here. The kind of risk where you're introducing a new product to market and the kind of risk patents are intended to offset. The iphone is the former (thus, no more risk than any introduction of a new product) but not the latter.
The latter has to be the kind of investment that takes years to pay off. That's why patents grant you a 20 year monopoly on the patented technology, to allow you to recoup a massive investment. These days, for a company like apple, that kind of investment would have to be in the tens of billions of dollars (in FY 2005 they made $13 billion in sales).
Are you saying you think Apple risked tens of billions of dollars on the iphone's success? Because that's pretty clearly not true. In 2003-2005 they spent about $500million/year on all of their R&D combined, rising $200million to about $700million in 2006-2007).
Apple's R&D has never been a 'risk' to their profit. Hell, by 2007 their interest income had caught up to their R&D expenses.
Also, pundits say a lot of stupid things about Apple. It doesn't really mean much for whether or not it was a significant financial risk.
As to your second paragraph, all I can say is that my second statement is entirely on-topic for the thread, given that it's about, you know, patents and stuff.
Note: Financial information taken from
http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1104659-05-58421&CIK=320193 and http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1047469-07-9340&CIK=320193
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
You're seeing what you want to see, and you're oversimplifying the discussion taking place here because you just want everyone on one side.
Some people writing "hey, Apple might have a point here, here, and here" or "Samsung is full of shit here" isn't "Apple should win this and destroy the industry and hold all the patents, guys."
$2 Billion in R&D (not counting production, advertising, manufacturing, etc. of the actual product) in the three years leading up to the iphone launch isn't something any company wants to eat, even a successful one. Regardless of whatever arbitrary cap you want to apply for said risk, it's pretty clear Apple was intending the phone to be a key component of their business going forward, and to fail in introducing it to a mass market, mainstream environment which had not adopted smartphones at that point would have been a big problem and at the time a real possibility.
The undertaking of Apple putting out the iphone is markedly different than RIM introducing another Blackberry or Motorola putting out another RAZR in the same time frame, which is what 'the same risk of putting a new product in an established and existing field' implies.
To be fair though, like 1.5 of those 2 billions are probably just patent application fees.
the other .5 was for Blight on Computing Advancement.
I think you missed something about what I was saying. I don't think $2billion in R&D for the iphone is anywhere near a reasonable conclusion for the data I gave. There was a substantial rise in R&D the year before and the year that the iphone came out. I don't think all of Apple's R&D efforts for the 5 years before were directed at the iphone by any stretch. The numbers for 2004 probably indicate a baseline, the subsequent rises indicate the likely direct investment in the iphone and ipad (along with some small amount from previous years acting as a seed). Unfortunately, with no further breakdowns neither of us can prove our case. But I think the real number is probably closer to 500 million or less. But even if you take their R&D investment in whole for the 2-3 years prior and give it all to the iphone, it's still a pittance to Apple.
I don't think it's an arbitrary cut-off at all, even if the law doesn't recognize one. I think Apple's use of patents in this case is subversive of their intended purpose, again whether the law recognizes that or not. I'm in favour of patent reform if the courts don't sort this out the right way.
And I think the same of Microsoft's, Samsung's, and Google's as well. But in this case Apple is the belligerent so they get the heat.
And I'm not saying it's equivalent to a new RAZR by any means, but possibly to the original RAZR. And if RIM weren't a one-product company but instead an established CE giant, the original introduction of the BB might have been a similar event.
Honestly, I think it's completely silly to think that Apple didn't know damn well what they could expect in sales for the iphone when they put it out. The odds of a flop, from their perspective, were much lower than you imply. Apple is a very cautious company and very defensive of its profits (or at least has been since Jobs came back). The initial launch of the iphone was even done pretty cautiously, like a test launch of sorts.
[edit] Here's a wired article from 2008 that claims AT&T and Apple spent $150 million developing the iphone http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/magazine/16-02/ff_iphone?currentPage=all
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
These patents should be invalidated en masse (and not just the ones that Apple owns). They fail the non-obviousness requirement in an instant.
googleplex
Member
HollovVpo1nt
Banned
Yeah it's posted. And it's very interesting. I think that if the Samsung lawyer held that exact speech in court the case would have been over by now.
I do not like Apple.
mugurumakensei
Member
From Endgadget:
... So it's not about TouchWiz, it's about Android?
It always has been. Taking down Samsung just gives Apple leverage to move towards suing Google.
But at the same time Android needs to do very well because Apple is moving away from Google services. Apple used Google services as a stopgap while building its own. Now they are turning against them as competitors.
tfur
Member
He just needs better perspective. Apple risked and sacrificed for us all.
- Status