Google, Motorola Ordered To Provide Android Info To Apple 240
snydeq writes "A U.S. judge has ordered Motorola Mobility and Google to turn over information to Apple on Google's acquisition in 2005 of Android, its development of the Android OS and the proposed acquisition of Motorola. According to Motorola, the information Apple seeks regarding Google's acquisition of Motorola and Android is not relevant to any damages asserted in the case."
This comes alongside news that Apple has offered licensing deals to Motorola and Samsung that would resolve some of the patent litigation. Apple is reportedly asking for $5-$15 per device sold.
Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ? (Score:5, Insightful)
So some manufacturers will end up paying Apple and Microsoft per device sold ? That's crazy.
Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, our broken patent system is crazy. It stifles innovation and harms society. That's why it should be significantly reformed (i.e., gutted).
That won't happen, of course, because companies like MS and Apple can afford to make it not happen. What's actually good for society is pretty much irrelevant.
Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, our broken patent system is crazy. It stifles innovation and harms society. That's why it should be significantly reformed (i.e., gutted).
I think patents should be eradicated outright, screw reform. Geniuses aren't special. There were two telephones in the PTO within hours of each other. Edison's 1880 Light-bulb patent came after Swan's 1878 UK patent for an improved incandescent lamp in a vacuum tube... Some of my teenage hobby source code is prior art that would invalidate many software patents held today (eg: VMware's saving & restoring VM state -- my Lisp VM did just that). Granting a monopoly over an idea because you made it to the patent office first is not valuable in today's society. The patent system has never worked as intended, it has always favoured the rich and established, not the basement genius.
I say we eradicate the patent system. The "no more innovation argumenteers" can argue all they want, but without testing the hypothesis it's all just untested conjecture. I say let's do the experiment. It's not like we can't re-instate whatever BS laws we want.
What if we sold the devices BLANK! Then you could by the Android OS firmware you want, or install your own separately installed via SD card. You know, like in the good old days, when you paid for hardware without being forced to pay for software too.
I've read lots of software patents and they all use a loophole: "Method and Apparatus for _____"
You see, the software is merely a binary description of the method, it's not an apparatus unless you consider the mind an apparatus... Neither can the blank general purpose computer AKA Apparatus by itself infringe a software patent.
So, the patent would only apply once the end user installs the software on the device and boots it, and eventually executes the patented instructions that implement the Method on the Apparatus -- if they ever do. Good luck suing all the end users, esp. when it's not clear that their machines executed the infringing code.
A patent application has a description of the patented process in it. That can be translated into Spanish, HTML, PDF, pseudo-code, etc. and it's not an infringement. OK, so what If It's translated into C? Still not an infringement, right? What if the C code is translated to machine code, or what if I actually manually translate the patent application into machine code (as I do occasionally, when I debug the compilers I make). I can execute those machine instructions on graph paper with a pencil, my mind is the Apparatus. So, this shouldn't be an infringement either.
You could sell the devices blank with only a PDF on them that actually describes the patented processes... right? I mean, downloading a PDF of a patent doesn't magically make my PC infringe the patent described therein. So, you could just as easily have placed the pseudo-code translation of said software patent claims on the otherwise blank device, still not an infringement, eh? What about C? Here's a device with a C code description of a patent in it. Is that an infringement? Nope. I'm having a hard time following the logical leap whereby the machine code translation of the patent claims creates an infringing use... eg: what if the device has the wrong firmware -- OR no power source -- That non-function device can't infringe a patent on a store shelf...
Well, let's say said device has a compiler present? If the C code isn't an infringement -- It's equivalent to a French or Pseudo-code translation of the patent -- then, you could simply compile the offending code yourself the first time the device is used. Wouldn't that "route-around" the distributor's infringing of said patents?
Seriously... this software patent crap has to stop.
Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think patents should be eradicated outright, screw reform. Geniuses aren't special.
Innovation requires more effort than genius. There are few "Ah-ha!" developments that come to people in the middle of the night in a dream. Patents are intended to create a profit incentive for people to put in the requisite effort, thereby encouraging innovation for the public good.
Without a profit incentive, why should I spend years in my lab building a better solar panel, or heart valve, or internal combustion engine? As soon as my years of hard work pay off and I put my product on the market, countless other companies would be able to offer the same thing for only the cost of reverse engineering my product. I endured all the up-front development costs, yet I make the same profit as everyone else who starts selling it because I have to compete with everyone else. I'm a nice guy, but I'm not self-sacrificing.
Seriously... this software patent crap has to stop.
The crap, yes. Patents themselves, no.
Re: (Score:2)
Innovation requires more effort than genius. There are few "Ah-ha!" developments that come to people in the middle of the night in a dream. Patents are intended to create a profit incentive for people to put in the requisite effort, thereby encouraging innovation for the public good.
This is the key argument for why software patents need to be destroyed but other patents can sometimes be useful. Because with software, 2/3rds of the expense is testing the code and removing the bugs. Which means that if you aren't engaged in copyright infringement, all that testing has to be duplicated. On top of the cost of actually reimplementing whatever allegedly patentable ideas were put forth, which is larger in software than in other industries because reverse engineering is plodding work -- in man
Creativity and hard work are not always inventions (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because something's useful or was hard to come up with, doesn't mean it's an invention worthy of patent protection. I'm sure fashion designers work very hard and are quite brilliant at what they do. But they're not inventors.
Most of the cellphone UI patents that are gumming up the works are patents on metaphors used in a touch screen UI. 'Slide to unlock' is a metaphor for a slider switch implemented on a touch screen. It is not an invention - it's 'inventiveness' has nothing to do with how it's implemented. It's a simulation of a real-world device on a touch screen. The same could be said for scroll 'bounce'. It's a simulation of what happens when a display on a physical device is scrolled past it's physical end. It's clever to use this metaphor to enhance the UI experience, but it's not an invention.
And don't get me started on FAT32 long filenames. A bugfix masquerading as an invention, which is only even useful because a certain monopoly desktop OS requires it for plug-in devices to work. Inventive? Maybe. But mostly an 'inventive' way to extract monopoly tolls on every device designed to plug into a computer. Whether this is patentable or not, charging royalties for the ability to work with a Windows PC shouldn't be allowed under antitrust law.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Without a profit incentive, why should I spend years in my lab building a better solar panel, or heart valve, or internal combustion engine?
Why would you now? Your innovation was probably pre-empted by someone who just described the general process anyway, and never spent any time or money actually getting it working in practice. The USPTO hasn't required working prototypes for quite a while now. That's why you can find patents on perpetual motion machines that managed to circumlocute their way past the USPTO watchdogs.
Ideas don't just pop up in the middle-of-the-night (Score:2)
I think patents should be eradicated outright, screw reform. Geniuses aren't special
Innovation requires more effort than genius. There are few "Ah-ha!" developments that come to people in the middle of the night in a dream
I can only speak for myself - none of my 3 patents came from the "Ah-ha!" moment in the middle of the night, nor did they come in my dream (day or night)
Enlightenment just do not pop-up in the middle of the night, not for me, at least
Re: (Score:3)
Innovation requires more effort than genius. There are few "Ah-ha!" developments that come to people in the middle of the night in a dream. Patents are intended to create a profit incentive for people to put in the requisite effort, thereby encouraging innovation for the public good.
At the moment, I have 30 issued US patents (sole inventor in some, joint inventor with my wife and/or other collaborators in others), and a few applications pending. They all involve physical apparatus, rather than pure method/process stuff. My own experience bears out your first point: that invention requires effort rather than genius. However, I'm not at all sure of your second point, below.
As soon as my years of hard work pay off and I put my product on the market, countless other companies would be able to offer the same thing for only the cost of reverse engineering my product.
The cost of reverse engineering a product is often just as high as the cost of inventing in the first place. More
Re: (Score:2)
If you would just f---ing quit referring to the issue as "software patent" (as in "software patents are bad"), and focus on the real issue of patents ... that they are ALL all bad (except those that meet the original patent justification of innovation that would never have happened were it not for the possibility of a patent), regardless of whether software, hardware, or anything else, then maybe we can actually start to get some traction on the issue. Instead, with people merely claiming "software patents
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that "route-around" the distributor's infringing of said patents?
In short, no. You can try to get cute working around the logical edges of the law, but legal code isn't the same as source code. The judge can still decide you are infringing in spirit, even if you manage to find a legal loophole that looks good on paper.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why it should be significantly reformed (i.e., gutted).
But to prevent them from screwing it up worse than it was before, we would first need to have the industry lobbyists and executives themselves reformed (i.e., gutted).
Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ? (Score:5, Informative)
Google is just as guilty of this as anyone. They also have no desire to actually push for patent reforms; as they also rely on many patents for their search business.
please point out one lawsuit that had to do with a google search patent. In fact google openly provided map reduce framework on handling large datasets a key to their search business.
Re: (Score:2)
There doesn't have to be an actual lawsuit. The screwed up patent system creates its own FUD.
Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad you found one case that was opened before Google acquired Motorola Mobility, where MM was actively defending against a troll in Microsoft. Microsoft accusing anyone of abusing patents is kinda like a black hole calling something dark. Seeing how the litigation between MS and MM has been going on since 10/10, I'm going to say your example isn't making GGP's assertion true. In fact, I'm willing to say that if that's the best someone can come up with, that assertion is absolutely false.
Your case is more an example of how Microsoft has been abusing its patent portfolio for seriously hideous patents. Most manufacturers just signed up to pay MS a cost of a Windows Mobile license to avoid litigation, and they passed the cost on to the consumer. You're thinking that deserves defense and benefits us? Apple wants a cut of the same action. They're proving that they're no better than MS, NTP and SCO in my book.
All this does is reinforce the idea that if you're a small time inventor, or even a big time manufacturer, who really wants to make a product that innovates, and gives people something they really want... There's no chance in hell in the US. MS, Apple, NTP, Honeywell or some other patent holding company will just kill you for making it remotely useful.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Your picture is complete bullshit. How about pick phones that are actually a realistic example for the before and after? No, you can't do that, because it would completely destroy your point.
1. WAY too many dumb phones on there, which is completely irrelevant
2. Complete lack of the many phones that should be on the "before" image that actually look really damn similar to the phones on the "after" image.
3. It's fucking easy to make these pictures with a ridiculous bias, and this picture screams bias like a m
Re:Photo of phones before and after iphone (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahem [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Touch screens replacing physical buttons is a whole LOT older than even this. I first saw them in use in other devices in 1989. Any patents from back then are run out now.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever see the Star7 demo on youtube? The Star7 was a handheld wireless device developed in 1991/1992. It had a touchscreen, played sound files, had color icons, and even kinetic scrolling, among many other features.
Re:Photo of phones before and after iphone (Score:5, Insightful)
A picture is worth a thousand words, but unfortunately there is no guarantee that those words are truthful.
Motorola had a very iPhone-like device (even with an app store) in 2006 before the iPhone was released...
http://www.quora.com/Why-was-Motorola-unable-to-capitalize-on-their-EZX-MotoMAGX-smartphone-platform-outside-of-China [quora.com]
Motorola hurt themselves with some bad decisions, but Apple did not single-handedly invent the modern smartphone. And I'm sure there are similar examples from other companies at the time. The fact that Apple executed better than their competitors has given them plenty of deserved success. It does not give them the right to hold a monopoly over the industry.
Re:Photo of phones before and after iphone (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
overly broad patents owned by litigious corporations with deep pockets have created a fear among inventors or potential inventors that any new invention will be labeled as infringing by some corporation owning some broad patent.
The even worse problem is that this fear is justified.
Be it in software or hardware, an inventor nowadays has only two choices: Either you sell out your invention to one of the few big quasi-monopoly companies who hold large enough patent portfolios and bank accounts to defend themselves, or you have to make sure that you're not successful to stay under the radar of patent trolls.
Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ? (Score:5, Insightful)
That ludicrous claim would only be valid if people buying an Android device believed they were buying an Apple device, this being the original intent of the law.
Clearly people were buying those device because the hardware outperformed the Apple hardware for the same price and the Android software was and is superior. So Apple intentionally distorted application of the law to prevent competition, using legal literal ambiguities.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Patents were intended to encourage inventors publically disclosing their inventions for future use by others by giving them limited protection if they do.
Patents were intended to serve society primarily, not inventors. Patented ideas are meant to be copied, just not now but when the patent runs out.
The alternative to patents are copyright law, where an inventor doesn't disclose anything, gets more protection and society gets less information.
The problem is that patent law has eroded into some form of co
Re: (Score:3)
In software that mechanism isn't just broken, it's unneeded.
I disagree with the general notion that software should be unpatentable.
IMHO, there are software solutions that are truely novel and of sufficient complexity to warrant a patent.
All too often though, a software patent simply means "I thought of the problem first, now I own every solution to this problem"; they don't describe novel solutions but simply the same solution anybody would have found were they trying to solve the same problem. Overly broad patents describe problems, not solutions.
Also, in order fo
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey megacorps, why not focus on... Oh I don't know... Making a better product? Think of all that R&D money wasted on lawyers. Just a shame.
And when you create a product from all that R&D money and a competitor simply "clones" the product, isn't that R&D money wasted? Well from the perspective of the creator who spent the money, not the cloner who free loaded.
Re: (Score:2)
So some manufacturers will end up paying Apple and Microsoft per device sold ? That's crazy.
That's pretty much the way it goes, everyone licenses patents from everyone else, for example Microsoft licenses a lot of patents from OpenWave and Apple licenses patents from Lodsys.
Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ? (Score:5, Insightful)
With racketeering you only have to pay one gang. With the patent system you have to pay multiple gangs.
Re:Paying Microsoft and Apple for Android ? (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently, Apple and Microsoft are both counting on Linux to secure their retirement income.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW: Android != Linux
In a nutshell Android is a Linux based kernel w/ some power saving improvements (e.g, wakelocks for drivers) and that's pretty much where the similarities end.
Android ships w/o most of the standard libraries (e.g., Xlib), and includes lots of Android specific middleware and support Apache Harmony (java compatible libraries). Although most applications are often written in Java, instead of being compiled to java bytecode and run on a standard JVM, Android uses it's own Dalvik byte code
Re: (Score:2)
Android != Unix user space clone
Android == Linux
Re: (Score:2)
In a nutshell Android is a Linux based kernel w/ some power saving improvements
So, Android is Linux, then. Gotcha, glad that's clear. Nobody cares about your favorite userland libraries.
RMS gets pretty worked up about it.
Dear Apple... (Score:2, Insightful)
Whoosh! (Score:5, Insightful)
People buy your products because they are original, innovative and useful. Litigation for profit is not original. Litigation for profit is not innovative. Litigation for profit is not useful.
You and so many others here just don't get it. Apple isn't interested in making money off Android. They want to kill it. The revenues from potential patent licenses, while nice, would be a rounding error on their P and L. Microsoft's motive may be partly for the profit (it's likely that their revenue from licensing patents to Android manufacturers exceeds their revenues from Windows Phone), but Apple is most assuredly not interested. Apple's motive is to chill Android's ascent, or preferably, kill the platform outright. There is apparently genuine anger inside Apple that is directed at Google because of Android; Apple feels that Google blatantly capitalized on Apple's hard work in birthing the iPhone and they're prepared to go to the mattresses to right the perceived wrong.
By making Android handsets more expensive to produce, Apple and Microsoft are adding friction to the adoption of Android, and both companies have large war chests they can use to open more fronts in their war against Google, the true enemy of both. Companies contemplating using Android will think twice before facing the two titans.
Re:Whoosh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple isn't interested in making money off Android. They want to kill it.
Oh, everybody gets that. If only because Steve Jobs literally stated it before he, ahem, died. Well, that karma thing you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple becoming a patent troll? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Apple becoming a patent troll? (Score:5, Insightful)
A patent troll is usually called that because they didn't produce anything using the patent in question aside from a lawsuit. Apple here is using patents they are actively using, and believe that are being infringed by Android. Considering Motorola is going for 2.5% of sale price of iPhones for use of standards patents covered by FRAND, this is at least a more reasonable figure. It's also quite possibly a means of leveraging a cross-licensing deal so neither side winds up paying the other a dime.
Ultimately, they're doing what most sane businesses would do. If you had a design you felt was innovative enough to patent and you spent a ton of R&D on, and you saw a company producing something that you believe is infringing on your ideas, would you just sit back and let them run with it? Or do you like doing free R&D for your competition?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I assert that you have your head up your ass. Please disprove.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Try Googling "Android before iPhone". Yes it existed. And it was a Blackberry clone. Only after the iPhone was released and a massive hit did they change course.
Re:Apple becoming a patent troll? (Score:4, Informative)
Get better sources. [osnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Apple: If it walks, talks, growls and stinks like a troll, it's a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
See, that is the flaw in your argument. You're supposing that any appreciable portion of patent law relates to something "innovative enough to patent" that somebody "spent a ton of R&D on." Especially as it pertains to companies the size of Apple or Microsoft.
There are
Re:Apple becoming a patent troll? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does Apple need to do this so badly? I understand that U$ 5 for every Motorola/Samsung Android phone/tablet is a hefty sum of money, but this hurts their image. specially for their customers, as it *could* be interpreted as having a difficult competing with Android. I'm very disappointed that they are going the same way as other patent trolls :(
Well a 'patent troll' is an entity that just holds patents and sues people that actually use the without licensing them but doesn't actually use them themselves, just suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll. And wrt hurting their image for their customers, if the conditions and incidents at the factories that build their products don't turn off their customers i hardly think suing their competitors for using their innovations (which is of course how they'll spin it regardless of your point of view) is going to.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
[blather]... so Apple isn't a patent troll
Only according to Apple apologists, fanbois, and spin doctors. For the rest of us, Apple is burning karma at an alarming rate and has already declined significantly in terms of respect for the corporate brand. Apple is doing its best to establish a reputation for rapaciousness over engineering excellence.
Re: (Score:3)
Only according to Apple apologists, fanbois, and spin doctors.
Well given that i am none of those that disproves your theory, too bad for you. It also demonstrates that you ignorantly think that anyone that sues over patents is a 'patent troll', so you fail again.
Re: (Score:2)
Only according to Apple apologists, fanbois, and spin doctors.
Well given that i am none of those that disproves your theory...
Wrong, your words "suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll" qualify you nicely under both "apologist" and "spin doctor". Never mind the blatant logical fallacy.
Here [betanews.com] are [arstechnica.com] some [talkandroid.com] links. [extremetech.com]
Message to Apple astrofurfers: the world will stop calling your company a dispicable troll when it stops being one. Trolling Slashdot just makes you appear more dispicable.
Re: (Score:2)
"just suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll" which is right.
No, it is a logical fallacy of the "does not follow" kind, perhaps the most rudimentary sort, sometimes not even dignified with the term "fallacy". Perhaps you need to refresh your knowledge [wikipedia.org].
just because you bring a patent suit doesnt make you a patent "troll".
Perhaps not, but being a patent troll like troll Apple does make you a troll, a big hairy stinking one.
Re: (Score:3)
My quoting in no way changed the sense of your post. And would you please try to keep a civil tongue in your mouth. You might consider posting under your real name as well, if you have the courage.
Your quoting missed the crucial part, either intentionally or just a failure at reading comprehension:
"just suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll"
The reality is that i stated the fact that there is more to being a 'patent troll' than simply filing a patent suit, just doing that does not make anyone a 'patent troll'. Your responses confirm you either have no understanding whatsoever of the term 'patent troll' (especially given you have not responded with what you
Re: (Score:3)
You said, and I quote: "just suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll." Which is a non sequitur, pure and simple, popularly known as a logical fallacy.
Rubbish, read the whole quote:
Well a 'patent troll' is an entity that just holds patents and sues people that actually use the without licensing them but doesn't actually use them themselves, just suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll.
Given that Apple doesn't fit the description of a patent troll - as described in the first half of the sentence - the obvious and logical conclusion is that they are not a patent troll.
First, your premise may well be false, but whether it is true or false, your purported conclusion does not follow from it. Your use of the word "just" in no way changes the sense of the perfectly simple English sentence you wrote, in spite of how you might want to spin that.
And you only quoted half of because you either
Re: (Score:3)
No wonder Apple's brand is slipping. [theinquirer.net]
Re: (Score:2)
[blather]... so Apple isn't a patent troll
Only according to Apple apologists, fanbois, and spin doctors. For the rest of us, Apple is burning karma at an alarming rate and has already declined significantly in terms of respect for the corporate brand. Apple is doing its best to establish a reputation for rapaciousness over engineering excellence.
People only use the term "patent troll" in this context because they don't know what it means. They saw it used elsewhere and are so emotionally invested in what they are saying they don't check if it means what they think it does. Then other people misuse it as well and the cycle goes on.
Wikipedia has an ok definition of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
People only use the term "patent troll" in this context because they don't know what it means.
And you think you do? Here [talkandroid.com] is a well reasoned discussion of the term. Apple would certainly qualify, even without stooping to this [arstechnica.com].
Re: (Score:2)
[blather]... so Apple isn't a patent troll
Only according to Apple apologists, fanbois, and spin doctors. For the rest of us, Apple is burning karma at an alarming rate and has already declined significantly in terms of respect for the corporate brand. Apple is doing its best to establish a reputation for rapaciousness over engineering excellence.
Wow, it seems the usual pack of Apple astroturfers with mod points is around tonight.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you about the definition about patent troll, I wanted to refer to the strategy of using the patents to hamper the innovation or squeeze some additional money from their competitors.
I know there's no real way to say 'they've made enough' off a particular innovation, but you'd think they wouldn't need to be squeezing that money out of their competitors given their market position and financial situation. In fact competing and doing so well in the market without suing your competitors would certainly make them look good, and only respond to patent lawsuits with cross-licensing agreements.
About their image, most customers (sadly) don't care about the conditions and incidents at the factories, because it doesn't affect them; they want their device as cheap as possible, even if it means looking away from the company manufacturing practices. I hope more people would be concerned about this, but only a minority won't change anything.
Agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple, except perhaps in earliest days, has never seemed to really give a shit about their "image". They _buy_ their image. The lawyers, of course, don't give a damn, looking for any advantage and anyone with pockets, to harm, in service to their masters.
As for all this kind of crap, and the same crap from yesterday, and from tomorrow, a pox upon them and their offspring unto the tenth generation. Sorry, there's just not enough popcorn.
The more I see Apple playing patent troll... (Score:5, Funny)
Can *you* deny that Apple did not borrow ideas? (Score:5, Informative)
Jobs was notorious for stealing the ideas of others.
If Android is a "stolen product," then so was the iPhone
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/if-android-is-a-stolen-product-then-so-was-the-iphone.ars
Re: (Score:2)
nothing wrong with being just another bb clone - but one where you can switch everything without sucking RIM's cock.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Did_Android_Really_Look_Like_BlackBerry_Before_the_iPhone_ [osnews.com]
The meme that Apple invented all that is touchscreen and froody needs to die. The reality is Apple is doing what Apple always does: makes some slickly packaged incremental improvements to the innovations of others then screams they invented it all.
Only solution is to boycott Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
I will be glad to go first.
Apple may have some nice products, but there is nothing I can't live without. Unlike MS, few people are locked-in to Apple.
I suppose Apple will still make a small amount off it's junk patents. But, that only until Apple gets sued back in some serious way. Really, how much of Apple's bullshit do you think other companies are going to take, before they take some action back?
Re:Only solution is to boycott Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Really, how much of Apple's bullshit do you think other companies are going to take, before they take some action back?
This comes _AFTER_ companies like Motorola demanded 2.25% for industry essential FRAND patents from Apple. Did you call for a boycott of Motorola for blatant and disgusting abuse of the patent system? Did you ask "how much of Motorola's bullshit are companies going to take before they take some action back?" No. Of course not.
Seriously, pull your head out of the sand. Look around and see things as they really are.
Re: (Score:3)
FRAND means you _MUST_ license the patent to ANYONE at a FAIR AND REASONABLE, NON-DISCRIMINATORY rate. 2.25% is not _reasonable_ and I doubt Motorola charges that same rate to other companies which means they are discriminating. Look, it's simple - Motorola (and Samsung) are abusing FRAND patents. Pure and simple. Stop ignoring what's going on just because you don't like Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
I will be glad to go first.
Apple may have some nice products, but there is nothing I can't live without. Unlike MS, few people are locked-in to Apple.
I suppose Apple will still make a small amount off it's junk patents. But, that only until Apple gets sued back in some serious way. Really, how much of Apple's bullshit do you think other companies are going to take, before they take some action back?
How is this insightful? Its full of the same misguided claptrap that permiates slashdot and pretty much every tech forum. The discussion, if you can call it that, has descended to the level of an early Hollywoodland black and white movie. There is no attempt to actually look into the issues, in fact there is no need. Apple and Microsoft are the good guys, Google and any Android manufacturer are the good guys. The merits of any individual measure are immaterial. /rant
If its so much bullshit can you please ex
Who wants to be my FRAND? (Score:3)
The big loser here seems to be standards. If Apple and Microsoft can extort large amounts of money for essentially fringe patents, what incentives do companies like Motorola and Samsung have to join their core technology patents to standards? This wasn't a big deal when it was just a few patent trolls, but the game has changed. The reason companies like standards and patent pools is to mitigate risk, especially legal risk. If standards no longer encourage everyone to play nice, then I fear for a more fragmented system, where tech moves slowly because everyone is developing against each other instead of with each other. But we now live in a world where a bouncing screen effect is worth billions, but the hardware implementations it runs on are worth much less.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell does anybody Thule I'd wrong with buying companies for their patents?
This is not the end of it, far from it (Score:3)
We can expect MS and Apple to keep churning out junk patents, and to keep forcing other companies to pay for their bogus "inventions."
Re:lame (Score:5, Funny)
Oh shit. There goes the planet.
There's nothing to worry about at the moment. Wait to start worrying until we have more details next year...
...Wait, you meant to reply to the asteroid story [slashdot.org], right?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh shit. There goes the planet.
There's nothing to worry about at the moment. Wait to start worrying until we have more details next year... ...Wait, you meant to reply to the asteroid story [slashdot.org], right?
Or possibly Spaceballs.
Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
As one who owns 3 patents here is my humble opinion:
It has passed time that the patent system be gutted
The patent system was set up to encourage innovation, but the effect in recent years has been exactly the opposite
To come up with innovative ideas isn't hard - trust me, my 3 patents testify to that - but to make sure that no megacorp gets rich with your innovative ideas without paying is just too damn crazy --- I had to pay 3 big law firms to carry out separate international patent searches in order to make sure that *MY* innovative ideas were original
Why 3 law firms instead of one? Because I just do not have the deep pockets of the megacorps and I do not want to end up letting the patent trolls profiting from *MY* ideas
If the patent system is gutted today, I will not lose even one minute of sleep - sure I'll lose some $$$ but compare to the loss of those patent trolls, my lose is insignificant
As per why I patent those ideas in the first place? Well, if I don't, then some mofos hired by those patent trolls will eventually patent them to make even more megabucks
True, I do charge for those who are using my patents, but only for pennies per device, depending on volume
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know how google, which is essentially a company that turns it's profits from spying and building a profile of every detail of it's users is not evil.
Re:Between Apple and Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
I feel the same way about game consoles. But with smart phones and tablets, I think both Microsoft and Apple see the writing on the wall.
Just for the record, I'm an iOS dev. I've avoided Android devices pretty much because I wasn't interested in the OS. Well, recently, I've been expanding my skillset and started branching out. I picked up a Galaxy Tab for a learning / development machine. I didn't like it at first but it became a slow burn and I found myself really enjoying the os (I find the back button for applications to be a brilliant os concept).
While I still prefer the overall experience of an iPad, it's painfully obvious that the "tablet gap" (cue strangelove) is being closed. I can't see Apple staying on top much longer and I'm guessing with their litigation spree, neither can they. It's literally Apple versus the world and those aren't very good odds.
If both companies manage to get a chuck of every tablet phone sale, they kind of win in a very shady way. The real thing to do is get rid of software patents or limit them to an ultra small window (a year at most). I don't see that ever happening unless we somehow divorce money from politics, but that's a whole different issue.
Re:Between Apple and Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
I find the back button for applications to be a brilliant os concept.
True. It is a sensible API that has a natural interpretation: return to the context from which the current context was invoked, whether that be another application, an earlier frame of the browser chain or whatever. Now the obvious: forward is equally natural and is blatantly not there in Android. How many times have I hit the "back", ending up back in the application list or somewhere, and have to go hunting around to get back into the application context I just left? Which by the way is still running by the "apps never exit" rule. So obviously what I really want is a forward button, right next the the back button as is right and proper. Whenever that makes sense of course. Note to Android devs: quick, implement this before troll Apple claims to own the patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Hold down the Home key, and Android will present you with a list of running applications to choose from.
Re: (Score:3)
I know that. It is no substitute for the obviously missing "forward" button.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably because it's wasted real estate having a required "forward" button. The back button can be used at any time, as any time you arrived at a new screen, you came their from somewhere. A "forward" button, however, would be disabled for the vast majority of the time. The only time it would be enabled is just after you've pressed the back button, and before you've made any other selection.
I'll keep my phone without the mandatory dead-spot thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably because it's wasted real estate having a required "forward" button.
No, it's not that, the line where the forward button should go is mostly empty. Speaking tablet here. Yes, in some cases origami might be required on a touch phone interface but the tablet interface must not suffer because of that.
Re:Between Apple and Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And get hit by the GPL violation.
Re: (Score:2)
And since you usually have no standing under the GPL and they're in China, you're pretty much fucked.
In other words, don't buy the cheap Chinese knockoff if you're concerned about legal matters.
Re: (Score:3)
The buyer is at no risk from GPL violations. THEY are the people the GPL was designed to protect.
Even the resellers are mostly using generic AOSP distros on the phones, while chipset vendors like Allwinner and MediaTek are genereally LESS precious than more established vendors when it comes to sharing code.
Can you link to any GPL violations?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Now that almost 50% of adults own smart phones I'm not sure we should call them smartphones anymore...
The smart people have dumb phones or no phone at all. Only the dumb people need to update Facebook every five minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
What telco in their right mind would choose giving their customers choice over having to pay some license fees and passing on the cost to the customer in exchange for almost complete control of the hardware and softawre?
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, crush it, or even shoot it. Put the video proof online.
Re:Fuck Apple (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, but they already have the patent on that.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, all big corporations will limit how their competitors can innovate.
Only so long as it has big government to give it a monopoly.
What about all the technology that Apple stole? (Score:2)
Or are you in denial about that?
Motorola invented real technology (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is suing over "inventions" like rounded corners, and slide-to-unlock - and a slew of other "inventions" that are actually prior art, or laughably trivial.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and you would be making an extremely stupid move as you would get slapped down so fast by the courts for doing so. Motorola and Samsung were both already struck down for trying to play games with FRAND patents.
I thought Java was F/OSS? (Score:2)
Small wonder Oracle is getting their ass handed to them in court. Serves them right.