And now - Google vs Apple Page 4

  • Page

    of 5 First / Last

  • Deleted user 19 August 2012 18:43:54
    @silentbob unfortunately whenever lou enters with undoubtedly the most informed opinion he gets shouted down by the usual suspect for becoming an apple fanboy, somehow.
  • ElNino9 19 Aug 2012 18:44:17 13,428 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    revan8 wrote:
    DFawkes wrote:
    I just wish they could all just get along. Leave all this nonsense behind and concentrate on selling phones. This type of thing is rarely good for consumers.
    This.

    Happening in most markets now, patients should be tighter and not given out for things like sliding unlocking.
    Wait, you're bringing patients into this?

    You sick cunt!

    Hated, adored, never ignored.

  • nickthegun 19 Aug 2012 18:49:45 59,937 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    revan8 wrote:
    I slide unlock is hardly something that should be exclusive. It is an obvious method of unlocking on a touch screen device.
    Now that someone has already invented it.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    someone say something funny

  • Dirtbox 19 Aug 2012 18:50:07 78,204 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    silentbob wrote:
    They're all as bad as each other.
    Hmm. Except that infographic doesn't show google as the one throwing lawsuits around.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • Deleted user 19 August 2012 18:51:04
    Because they haven't had any ammunition?
  • Dirtbox 19 Aug 2012 18:54:12 78,204 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    They've got more ammunition than any other company in the webspace. Bing using google's search results for example.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • silentbob 19 Aug 2012 19:06:17 28,974 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    revan8 wrote:
    Tighter in the way that they are harder to get, if they looser they would be too easy for the owner to sue on.

    I slide unlock is hardly something that should be exclusive. It is an obvious method of unlocking on a touch screen device.
    I'm sorry, but that doesn't explain why it shouldn't be patentable. Stating "well it's obvious innit" isn't really a robust defence. How many things have been invented which can, in retrospect, seem obvious.

    These sorts of UI mechanisms are now so important in differentiating company products from one another and this one in particular so tied to IOS and it's associated devices, arguing that it's not defend-able seems to miss why we choose one consumer electronics product or another these days.

    Incidentally, I'm not sure myself if it's healthy for the above to be so tightly controller, merely trying to highlight that when looking at these sorts of disputes, perhaps we look at them from the wrong perspective.

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • disusedgenius 19 Aug 2012 19:11:32 5,331 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    It somewhat depends what part of it is the invention: the concept, the code, the artwork etc. Sure, if someone copied and pasted the actual implementation of the idea that'd be one thing, But creating your own version of something from scratch doesn't seem like something which should be stopped.
  • silentbob 19 Aug 2012 19:15:35 28,974 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Dirtbox wrote:
    They've got more ammunition than any other company in the webspace. Bing using google's search results for example.
    Seems you intentionally limited the scope of the term 'ammunition' there. The infographic I posted is somewhat broader.

    Incidentally, I posted it to offset the usual harping on Apple being the root of all evil when it comes to tying up the courts in litigation, when it's clear they're all 'at it' to some degree of another.

    Phrases such as "dose of their own medicine" ring enormously naive and hollow in my ears and smacks far too strongly of merely using yet another lawsuit story to cheer for or against your chosen 'team'.

    The fact is, the entire system is mired in a legal quagmire that hardly seems healthy for any company. If Google has or has not chosen to sue as much, I doubt very much that it has anything to do with the company being altruistic to it's core. The more it's profits are rooted in consumer products, the more they'll probably have to litigate to survive. Just like the rest of them.

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • dominalien 19 Aug 2012 21:02:46 6,860 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Post deleted

    PSN: DonOsito

  • Deleted user 19 August 2012 22:06:37
    Khanivor wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    Khanivor wrote:
    Has anyone made a graph showing Apple's declining share of the market versus their rising number of patent cases? Be curious to see if there's any alignment.
    No because it isn't declining.

    http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/02/iphone-market-share-june-2012-android-blackberry/
    Unless you count the whole world.
    Your graph doesn't show it's declining, it shows that it's fluctuating whilst the android operating system (which is incredibly fragmented both in versions and across hundreds of different phones shouldn't really be classed as one system) has increased.
  • Armoured_Bear 19 Aug 2012 22:40:48 11,266 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Wow, what a clusterfuck of fanboy shit.

    XBL : ecosse011172
    PSN : ecosse_011172
    NNID : armoured_bear

  • Triggerhappytel 19 Aug 2012 23:05:09 2,695 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    This topic is making my head hurt.

    As someone said on the previous page, the only winners here are lawyers.

    Now, who wants to hold my hands and sit on the grass while we listen to Imagine?

    Edited by Triggerhappytel at 23:05:30 19-08-2012
  • mal 20 Aug 2012 01:22:35 22,554 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Not me. I really really hate Imagine

    As for google vs. apple, I half assumed Google bought Motorola so it could play patent pokemon, but I then changed my mind when they didn't do anything about it for months. Why jump now? Surely a company in Motorola's position knows exactly what patents it has? Although to be fair I wouldn't put it past Google to completely ignore the work Motorola has been doing and have set its own lawyers to read all the patents back from scratch.

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • DodgyPast 20 Aug 2012 02:52:35 8,468 posts
    Seen 53 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    revan8 wrote:
    I slide unlock is hardly something that should be exclusive. It is an obvious method of unlocking on a touch screen device.
    Now that someone has already invented it.
    Yeah because I've never come across slide to unlock in the physical world? It's not innovative because it's something humans have been doing for hundreds of years.
  • Dirtbox 20 Aug 2012 04:15:42 78,204 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    @silentbob If you looks at the infographic you posted, there's more litigation from Apple than any of the companies listed.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • Phattso Moderator 20 Aug 2012 04:19:41 13,336 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    He never said there wasn't - merely that they're all "at it" to some degree. And they are. Have been for years. It's a vicious cycle that will require something monumental to break.
  • Dirtbox 20 Aug 2012 04:27:38 78,204 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Yeah, but he said they're all as bad as each other. Clearly they aren't. Of course there's patent litigation from time to time, that's the nature of the tech business, but no one can hold a candle to Apple on that count.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • Phattso Moderator 20 Aug 2012 04:37:18 13,336 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    And this assertion takes into account _all_ patent issues, or are you just choosing the mobile subset? Because I can promise you it's a lot worse, and definitely murkier, in other industries.

    Not that I disagree that Apple are douches when it comes to aggressively protecting their patent portfolio as they see it - but it's the nature of the business. They're not doing anything that others aren't, and their right to do this is enshrined in law. It's just a matter of degree. They're all fucking douchebags.
  • Khanivor 20 Aug 2012 05:00:19 40,772 posts
    Seen 47 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Shame you can't patent the process of patent litigation. Epic troll.
  • pauleyc 20 Aug 2012 06:39:36 4,462 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    Shame you can't patent the process of patent litigation. Epic troll.
    Or can you?

    http://www.conceivablytech.com/4823/business/the-ultimate-patent-troll-patent-get-sued-when-you-file-a-patent
  • Tonka 20 Aug 2012 07:13:03 20,430 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    @Aargh. Im sure you quoting him and commenting on the post will ad to that feeling.

    If you can read this you really need to fiddle with your forum settings.

  • Tonka 20 Aug 2012 07:16:21 20,430 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    DodgyPast wrote:
    nickthegun wrote:
    revan8 wrote:
    I slide unlock is hardly something that should be exclusive. It is an obvious method of unlocking on a touch screen device.
    Now that someone has already invented it.
    Yeah because I've never come across slide to unlock in the physical world? It's not innovative because it's something humans have been doing for hundreds of years.
    Apple weren't even the first with it. Some small swedish MP3 player company no one cared about did it before them. So yeah. Retarded.

    Most software patents are retarded. The best thing ever is how Adobe patented their fucked up GUI so that everyone else can't copy that annoying piece of semi sticking snapping toolboxes taht collapse in three steps. Makes me laugh every time I curse it.

    If you can read this you really need to fiddle with your forum settings.

  • silentbob 20 Aug 2012 07:30:43 28,974 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Dirtbox wrote:
    Yeah, but he said they're all as bad as each other. Clearly they aren't. Of course there's patent litigation from time to time, that's the nature of the tech business, but no one can hold a candle to Apple on that count.
    From what I remember, Apple had as many companies suing it and has as many outbound cases as Microsoft.

    Besides, it gets pretty nebulous here. How do you designate a company as 'good and true', 1-3 lawsuits? My point was that in the corporate world of cutting edge consumer electronics, this is now a way of life.

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • Salaman 20 Aug 2012 09:47:05 19,066 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    silentbob wrote:
    They're all as bad as each other.
    Absolutely this. There is no winner here except the lawyers. If google are successful people will no longer be able to buy a good product. Woop de doo.

    Fwiw, I love apple products (2nd gen onwards, obviously) but I absolutely *hate* apple as a company. They are the sharpest, most precious bunch of pirates on the tech high seas but its not as if google are some robin hood, riding in to protect our consumer virtues. Neither of them give a shit about you until you give them money and even then, they would charge for a pint of piss if you were on fire.
    Well strictly speaking google don't want your money. They just want your info, to be used for charging money to companies who want to target you with ads.
  • Ginger 20 Aug 2012 09:55:19 6,840 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    silentbob wrote:
    I'm sorry, but that doesn't explain why it shouldn't be patentable. Stating "well it's obvious innit" isn't really a robust defence. How many things have been invented which can, in retrospect, seem obvious.
    A patent by definition must not be obvious "to a person skilled in the art". So if something can be deemed to be obvious when a patent is challenged the patent is revoked.

    However, the thing patented (i.e. slide to unlock in this case) can't have been obvious at the time the patent was filed. It's totally subjective however, and why the lawyers are getting so rich.

    Edited by Ginger at 09:55:56 20-08-2012

    London open taekwondo champion

  • DodgyPast 20 Aug 2012 10:22:31 8,468 posts
    Seen 53 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Ginger wrote:
    A patent by definition must not be obvious "to a person skilled in the art". So if something can be deemed to be obvious when a patent is challenged the patent is revoked.

    However, the thing patented (i.e. slide to unlock in this case) can't have been obvious at the time the patent was filed. It's totally subjective however, and why the lawyers are getting so rich.
    /fails to open balcony doors because the slide lock isn't obvious.

    The other thing that bugs the shit out of me is all the patents where they've taken standard computer stuff and tacked on 'on a mobile device'.
  • Ginger 20 Aug 2012 10:30:59 6,840 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    DodgyPast wrote:
    Ginger wrote:
    A patent by definition must not be obvious "to a person skilled in the art". So if something can be deemed to be obvious when a patent is challenged the patent is revoked.

    However, the thing patented (i.e. slide to unlock in this case) can't have been obvious at the time the patent was filed. It's totally subjective however, and why the lawyers are getting so rich.
    /fails to open balcony doors because the slide lock isn't obvious.

    The other thing that bugs the shit out of me is all the patents where they've taken standard computer stuff and tacked on 'on a mobile device'.
    Yeah, sorry - my last sentence wasn't clear. In order for the patent to be valid, the patent office agent assessing the case can't have thought the slide to unlock was obvious at the time the patent was assessed and granted.

    Patenting is not a one way process by the way. A lot of a patent attorneys job is finding reasons why a patent should be granted and arguing with the relevant patent office. A cynical person might suggest that the reason so many duff patents get granted is that there are more attorneys in industry than patent agents in the patent office, and attrition just means that a patent agent will give up if a company pushes back.

    A cyncial person might suggest that. Not me, no siree.

    I also thought that combination patents (i.e. a teasmaid with a mobile attached) tended to fall under the "obvious" category, but maybe it's different in the US.

    London open taekwondo champion

  • delbert 20 Aug 2012 12:33:40 2,889 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Someone mentioned the timing.. Are Google not going to see a drop in licensing revenue when iOS drops their Maps in favour of the Apple "equivalent".. Could that be a driver?

    /sorry for resurrecting a train wreck but I'm a slow reader ;)
  • Tonka 21 Aug 2012 06:43:18 20,430 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Google: we're the nice guys. We want to ditch SW patents

    A bit weird innit? Is this an olive branch?
    "Look Apple, we can be right cnuts too. But if you say Uncle we'll drop the charges."

    If you can read this you really need to fiddle with your forum settings.

  • Page

    of 5 First / Last

Log in or register to reply