dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1245
share rss forum feed


FF4m3

@bhn.net

Apple & Google In Talks To End Patent War?

Apple & Google In Talks To End Patent War?

From The Register:

The heads of Apple and Google are said to be in talks to try and find a solution to the current patent war over the Android operating system.

Much like President Obama, Apple CEO Tim Cook inherited a some-would-say pointless war from his predecessor, but unlike the politicians it seems the techies are willing to try "jaw, jaw, rather than war, war," to quote Winston Churchill.

Reuters reports that Cook and Google CEO Larry Page already had one extensive phone call last week to try and settle their differences, with another that was scheduled for this week but cancelled for unspecified reasons. Meanwhile, lower corporate minions are working on a series of discussion points for the two.

It's not clear if these talks are just about the Android operating system and its similarities to iOS, or if the two are looking at a broader non-aggression pact. Apple may have won $1.05bn in damages from Samsung in court last week, but the Koreans look set to take the issue right to the Supreme Court - and that's a lot of legal bills and bad publicity for Apple.

Similarly, Android OEMs need a bit of stability in their lives. Tim Cook warned the industry that Apple has taken heart from the Samsung verdict and has other companies in its sights, and Larry Page could be willing to come to some sort of deal with Apple that would stave off further legal action.

With both protagonists gone, it may be that both companies have decided the time has come to bury the hatchet. Apple's the most valuable company in the world, but Google's not short of funds, and a protracted legal war could prove very expensive.



KodiacZiller
Premium
join:2008-09-04
73368
kudos:2
said by FF4m3 :

It's not clear if these talks are just about the Android operating system and its similarities to iOS,

You mean iOS is similar to Unix, of which it is a complete rip-off, as is OSX. Linux/Android is also rip-off of Unix, but it never claimed to be anything else.

Apple has never been truly innovative, they have merely taken the hard work from others (like BSD) and then done an excellent job at marketing it. Most of the parts in the iPhone are made by Samsung -- the company they just sued. Apple's desktop never really got popular until they switched from their crappy PPC to Intel x86 (because x86 is cheaper and more powerful at the same time). So nothing Apple has is original. Their hardware in their mobile devices is primarily Samsung, and their hardware in desktop/laptops is x86. All of it is made by third-parties. And their software is primarily BSD/Mach. Their only innovation is a few userspace applications and rectangular icons.

At least M$ invents their own shit, as crappy as it may be (though M$ is guilty of bogus software patents too and have done their part in fighting Android).

Bottom line: the patent system is out of control.
--
Getting people to stop using windows is more or less the same as trying to get people to stop smoking tobacco products. They dont want to change; they are happy with slowly dying inside. -- munky99999


Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1

1 edit
quote:
said by [ KodiacZiller See Profile] Apple's desktop never really got popular until they switched from their crappy PPC to Intel x86 (because x86 is cheaper and more powerful at the same time). So nothing Apple has is original.

And not that, that has at all dropped Apples exorbitant hardware prices, just more profit. And also left all the G-(x) users in the dust stuck at OX 10.15 they also have no qualms about.

M$ has done its bits of obsolescence to but not that extreme.
--



Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
reply to KodiacZiller
said by KodiacZiller:

You mean iOS is similar to Unix, of which it is a complete rip-off, as is OSX. Linux/Android is also rip-off of Unix, but it never claimed to be anything else.

And Linux and Solaris and BSD are all complete rip-offs of Unix.


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to FF4m3
I'm surpirised that some posters here believe that Linux is a UNIX rip-off.

While Linux is 'UNIX-Like' it contain no UNIX code.

The term Unix-like is widely used to describe operating systems that share many of the characteristics of the original UNIX, which was written in 1969 by Ken Thompson at Bell Labs, and its early successors.

However, they do not have a direct lineage to the original UNIX source code, and most of them do not officially describe themselves as being UNIX. This category includes the BSDs (i.e., FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and Darwin), Linux, MINIX, QNX and Cygwin.

Broadly, any Unix-like system that behaves in a manner roughly consistent with the UNIX specification; more specifically, this can refer to systems such as Linux or Minix that behave similarly to a UNIX system but have no genetic or trademark connection to the AT&T code base.

Apple Mac OS X 10.5 and later is a BSD variant, and has been [UNIX] certified, and a few certified systems (such as IBM z/OS) earned the trademark through a POSIX compatibility layer and are not otherwise inherently Unix systems.



Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
Understand that my post was in jest. The "Is Linux Unix?" debate is about an interesting debate as YOTLD debates.


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
reply to FF4m3
said by FF4m3 :

I'm surpirised that some posters here believe that Linux is a UNIX rip-off.

I thought Linux was a Minix rip-off
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

reply to Maxo
said by Maxo:

said by KodiacZiller:

You mean iOS is similar to Unix, of which it is a complete rip-off, as is OSX. Linux/Android is also rip-off of Unix, but it never claimed to be anything else.

And Linux and Solaris and BSD are all complete rip-offs of Unix.

And parts of Unix are a complete rip-off of other operating systems: e.g., the notion of hierarchical file system came from Multics. As did the idea of writing an OS in a higher-level language. And probably everyone stole something from the SDS940.

Not that any of this matters; I'm just amused by the "foo stole ideas from bar" zealots.

I for one don't want to ever employ a programmer who's too stupid to copy a good idea when he sees one.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
reply to FF4m3
said by FF4m3 :

I'm surpirised that some posters here believe that Linux is a UNIX rip-off.

I assumed the allegation was about ideas, not code. But maybe I misread it.


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to Maxo
said by Maxo:

Understand that my post was in jest.

Sorry, I didn't understand that.
said by Maxo:

The "Is Linux Unix?" debate is about an interesting debate as YOTLD debates.

Not familiar with 'YOTLD'. Googled it, but nada.


Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
said by FF4m3 :

said by Maxo:

Understand that my post was in jest.

Sorry, I didn't understand that.

I was kidding when I said Linux, etc. was a ripoff of Unix. I was poking fun at the silliness of KodiacZiller See Profile's assertions.
said by FF4m3 :

said by Maxo:

The "Is Linux Unix?" debate is about an interesting debate as YOTLD debates.

Not familiar with 'YOTLD'. Googled it, but nada.

YOTLD = Year of the Linux Deskop.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter

»maxolasersquad.com/

»maxolasersquad.blogspot.com

»www.facebook.com/maxolasersquad


FF4m3

@bhn.net
said by Maxo:

said by FF4m3 :

said by Maxo:

Understand that my post was in jest.

Sorry, I didn't understand that.

I was kidding when I said Linux, etc. was a ripoff of Unix. I was poking fun at the silliness of KodiacZiller See Profile's assertions.
said by FF4m3 :

said by Maxo:

The "Is Linux Unix?" debate is about an interesting debate as YOTLD debates.

Not familiar with 'YOTLD'. Googled it, but nada.

YOTLD = Year of the Linux Deskop.

Got it. (smacks head) Thanks.

Shoulda had an extra espresso this morning.

Riamen
Premium
join:2002-11-04
Calgary
reply to KodiacZiller
said by KodiacZiller:

Apple has never been truly innovative, they have merely taken the hard work from others (like BSD) and then done an excellent job at marketing it. Most of the parts in the iPhone are made by Samsung -- the company they just sued. Apple's desktop never really got popular until they switched from their crappy PPC to Intel x86 (because x86 is cheaper and more powerful at the same time). So nothing Apple has is original. Their hardware in their mobile devices is primarily Samsung, and their hardware in desktop/laptops is x86. All of it is made by third-parties. And their software is primarily BSD/Mach. Their only innovation is a few userspace applications and rectangular icons.

Replace innovative with inventive and I might agree with you. Apple definitely is innovative, just not that inventive. There is a difference. BTW Apple does actually design the SOCs for its iDevices and Samsung components make up about 30% of the cost of them.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
I'm not seeing your point.

Sayeth the OED:
quote:
innovative: featuring new methods; advanced and original

quote:
inventive: having the ability to create or design new things or to think

Apple either is or is not inventive. (I'd say they are: iPod, iPhone, iEtcEtc)

Any given Apple product either is or is not innovative. (iPhone, sure; some of the server hardware, not so much.

So, an inventive company is apt to produce innovative products.

Riamen
Premium
join:2002-11-04
Calgary
said by dave:

I'm not seeing your point.

The OED aside, in the modern business sense innovation is the taking of an idea and and making it a success to the point that it changes things. Apple has done this repeatedly. They didn't invent the GUI, MP3 player, cell phone or tablet computer but Apple's versions where successful, disruptive and therefore innovative.


signmeuptoo
Bless you Howie
Premium
join:2001-11-22
NanoParticle
kudos:5
reply to FF4m3
Was the navigation wheel in the iPod an Apple invention, or did that acquire that? People loved that thing, still do. I was given a Cowon D2 and I like it better than the Apple players, it's a little small for the fingers but Rockbox on it is cool, if not a bit buggy.

Incidentally, what ABOUT Rockbox, is it nix like?
--
Join Teams Helix and Discovery. Rest in Peace, Leonard David Smith, my best friend, you are missed badly! Rest in peace, Pop, glad our last years were good. Please pray for Colin, he has ependymoma, a brain cancer, donate to a children's Hospital.


FF4m3

@bhn.net
said by signmeuptoo:

Was the navigation wheel in the iPod an Apple invention, or did that acquire that?

iPod click wheel:

It is not widely known that Apple did not develop the click wheel; Synaptics came up with the design for the device. There have nevertheless been a few lawsuits concerning its capacitance-sensing technology.

In January 2007, a U.K Based company named Quantum Research made public a lawsuit against Apple claiming that its own patents on this technology were being infringed by Apple itself. Legal action regarding this lawsuit had been going on since 2005, but was not made public until two years after.

said by signmeuptoo:

Incidentally, what ABOUT Rockbox, is it nix like?

Rockbox:

Rockbox is a free and open source replacement for the standard firmware in various forms of digital audio players (DAPs).



FF4m3

@bhn.net
Apple Inc. Litigation:

From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries.

Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media.

Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.



Wily_One
Premium
join:2002-11-24
San Jose, CA
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
reply to dave
said by dave:

I assumed the allegation was about ideas, not code.

You cannot copyright (or patent) an idea.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by Wily_One:

said by dave:

I assumed the allegation was about ideas, not code.

You cannot copyright (or patent) an idea.

And neither did I suggest that unix, linux, etc., were in violation of copyright or patent, merely that they copied something.

Actually, though, you can patent an idea. Software is patentable and it is not necessary for a working implementation to accompany the patent application. Ergo, what you're patenting is an idea. Less directly, even if you demonstrate a working mechanical model (in the non-software case), what you're patenting is the idea by which the machine is realized, not the actual machine.


FF4m3

@bhn.net
said by dave:

said by Wily_One:

said by dave:

I assumed the allegation was about ideas, not code.

You cannot copyright (or patent) an idea.

Actually, though, you can patent an idea.

Incorrect.

From IPWatchdog:

Unfortunately, despite what you may have heard from late night television, satellite radio commercials or snake oil salesmen, there is no effective way to protect an idea.

Copyrights protect expression and patents protects inventions, and neither protect ideas. In both cases the idea is the first critical step, but without some identifiable embodiment of the idea there can be no intellectual property protection obtained and no exclusive rights will flow unto you.

From Patent-FAQ:

the first step is realizing that an “idea” is not an “invention”

From The US Patent & Trademark Office:

What cannot be patented:
Abstract ideas



Wily_One
Premium
join:2002-11-24
San Jose, CA
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
reply to dave
Straight from USPTO:
A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required.
»www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/···ents.jsp

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
said by Wily_One:

Straight from USPTO:

A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required.
»www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/···ents.jsp

I guess the patent office forgot about some of its rules with the arrival of the software patent.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


Wily_One
Premium
join:2002-11-24
San Jose, CA
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
Yeah. I don't know how we got from there to here, but lately it seems the PTO issues a patent for anything and everything. I think the real issue is the complexity and abstract nature of software algorithms is just too far removed from the PTO's ability to evaluate.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

2 edits
reply to Kearnstd
Indeed. My name is on some software patents; I'm pretty sure that at no point has the thing being patented been demonstrated to work to the US patent office.

Naturally, of course, software is such that if we describe the idea well enough for the patent office, then we might as well have written the software. It's not like writing code is hard, it's deciding what code to write (i.e, coming up with the idea) that gets tricky.

You can quote definitions all you like, but the fact remains that Amazon essentially was granted a patent on the very idea that you can buy something with one click. Sure they had to dress it up like an 'invention', but what really torqued the rest of the world is that they got a lock on a (trivial) idea.

This is a probably an argument about words. In a software patent, it's definitely not the implementation that is being patented. It's the what-is-done-and-how-to-do-it part, which I'm calling an idea -- 'algorithm' is too precise a word. Certainly not an 'abstract' idea, but still idea.

Or to spin this another way: if you've got an idea you'd like to patent, you'd probably be able to word it in a way that the USPTO would find perfectly acceptable. The difference between "I have an idea of doing X" (not patentable) and "I can write down how to make a computer do X" (patentable) is not at all wide in any practical sense.

Of course, I'm not claiming that just any idea can be patented, otherwise I'd be filing "there ought to be time machines" right now.


FF4m3

@bhn.net
Try to spin it any way you'd like, dave.

Software may be patented, mousetraps may be patented, books may be copyrighted. As the USPTO states - ideas cannot be patented.

Consider presenting your argument before The US Patent & Trademark Office. It would be amusing.