dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2773
share rss forum feed


Teasip

join:2001-05-14
Plano, TX
reply to sgarrand

Re: We've passed Peak Apple....

Thanks. For the mess that I went through today (posted in a separate thread) it looks like the Samsung may not be a bad option. I've got to perform a little research on it's ability to interact with OS X first.


sk1939
Premium
join:2010-10-23
Mclean, VA
kudos:10
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Metatron2008

said by Metatron2008:

said by Daemon:

Or, perhaps, they felt that many Android features were a direct rip-off of iOS features and wanted them to stop.

Oh really? An OS made with a Linux core (Android) shares features like an OS made from a UNIX core (iOS)? When does an OS not share features?

quote:
Apple hasn't sued Microsoft
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Comp···poration

The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]..."[1] In the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's.

quote:
Nokia
»news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20029047-37.html

Apple sues Nokia over iPhone scrolling patent

quote:
Amazon
»www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/03/22/···dex.html

Apple sues Amazon over 'app store' name

quote:
or Barnes and Noble
You actually got one right. Microsoft sued Barnes and Noble.

Apple has a long history of making good devices and then acting like it invented the entire market. You wanna also say that Apple invented the term App store?

Did apple also invent the apple? Is that why they suing poland grocery stores for having an apple logo?

»www.webpronews.com/apple-sues-on···-2012-09

The lawsuits are an interesting issue. Apple also sued Samsung (now infamously) over the design of the iPhone (literally rectangle with rounded edges and a prominent screen).


sgarrand
Insert Witty Phrase Here
Premium
join:2000-04-13
West Brookfield, MA
reply to Teasip

If there's anything specific, I have a 2011 iMac and I could help. Drop me an IM if you need something.

Scott
--
My web site is WhyTheHell.com


Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to Daemon

said by Daemon:

Or, perhaps, they felt that many Android features were a direct rip-off of iOS features and wanted them to stop. Apple hasn't sued Microsoft, Nokia, Amazon, or Barnes and Noble. They didn't go after Palm when it was around either.

Maybe maybe not. But Apple's patents are like saying Blizzard should be able to patent "The use of Elves in a fantasy MMORPG setting."

Or Lucas Film being able to patent triangle shaped space ships for use in science fiction and then suing whoever holds the current rights to Asteroids.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
reply to sk1939

But yet Apple blatantly stole the clock design in iOS 6 and were caught.


Daemon
Premium
join:2003-06-29
Berkeley, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·webpass.net

2 edits
reply to Metatron2008

said by Metatron2008:

You actually got one right. Microsoft sued Barnes and Noble.

Apple has a long history of making good devices and then acting like it invented the entire market. You wanna also say that Apple invented the term App store?

I was talking about patents and mobile operating systems, not lawsuits from decades ago or those involving trademarks (which operate completely differently--if you don't sue on a trademark, you lose it by default). So you got me on the Nokia one, but the rest are not relevant in this context.

Stating Android v iOS is about Linux vs Unix is a little silly. The core is not where the controversies arise--nearly all of the lawsuits have been about interfaces not about core feature implementations. Some of them have been algorithmic, but none have involved the actual kernel of the operating system that I am aware of. (The only 'core' lawsuit I can think of is Oracle vs Google re:Android APIs)

And not all OSes share UI features. Apple likes to use Windows Phone as an example of how you can do things in a different enough way that you don't infringe, while still making a device that does all the things users want.

--
-Ryan
I use Linux, OS X, iOS and Windows. Let the OS wars die.

sk1939
Premium
join:2010-10-23
Mclean, VA
kudos:10
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Verizon FiOS

Windows Phone also benefits from the fact that it isn't a strong competitor to Apple unlike Android.

As far as patents go, Apple holds a number of patents that are overly broad, and can claim patent infringement on a wide variety of things. Apple also has a tendency to claim it invented things (debatable) when in reality they just improved on existing technology (the Mp3 player was along well before the iPod was out).


Daemon
Premium
join:2003-06-29
Berkeley, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·webpass.net

said by sk1939:

As far as patents go, Apple holds a number of patents that are overly broad, and can claim patent infringement on a wide variety of things.

Given that companies have a fiduciary duty to shareholders, anyone that thinks Apple wouldn't or shouldn't patent what they do has his or her head in the clouds. If you don't like the patents because you think they are overly broad, then you should take up the fight against the federal circuit and supreme courts, not Apple. The federal circuit in particular has become problematic.

If you look at the history of the way Android was developed and combine that with the emails that came out during the Oracle trial, it's clear those at the top chose to ignore potential IP problems, whether willfully or naively. It's biting them in the rear now. Microsoft is too smart, with too long of a history, to let that happen to them, instead choosing to cross license with Apple to get patents they could and modify the UI of WP otherwise.

In the history of the litigation over mobile UI patents, Apple has tried to bring out big guns that cover large parts of multi touch interfaces and have quickly and frequently found that those patents don't hold up to closer scrutiny and claims get tossed out. Instead, they are now using patents on very specific features of iOS, like the over scroll physics. The lawsuit against Samsung, once all the claims on both sides were narrowed, really came down to 'don't make your phones look just like ours' and 'don't copy our OS down to minute details'.
--
-Ryan
I use Linux, OS X, iOS and Windows. Let the OS wars die.


Jimothy

@mycingular.net
reply to ptrowski

said by ptrowski:

But yet Apple blatantly stole the clock design in iOS 6 and were caught.

patents and trademarks are not the same thing and the vast vast vast majority of timepiece dial designs are not protected under anything, there's a reason you can find 5 bajillion perfectly legal submariner homages and their isn't a single thing Rolex can do outside of their protected crown logo and name

sk1939
Premium
join:2010-10-23
Mclean, VA
kudos:10
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Daemon

said by Daemon:

said by sk1939:

As far as patents go, Apple holds a number of patents that are overly broad, and can claim patent infringement on a wide variety of things.

Given that companies have a fiduciary duty to shareholders, anyone that thinks Apple wouldn't or shouldn't patent what they do has his or her head in the clouds. If you don't like the patents because you think they are overly broad, then you should take up the fight against the federal circuit and supreme courts, not Apple. The federal circuit in particular has become problematic.

If you look at the history of the way Android was developed and combine that with the emails that came out during the Oracle trial, it's clear those at the top chose to ignore potential IP problems, whether willfully or naively. It's biting them in the rear now. Microsoft is too smart, with too long of a history, to let that happen to them, instead choosing to cross license with Apple to get patents they could and modify the UI of WP otherwise.

In the history of the litigation over mobile UI patents, Apple has tried to bring out big guns that cover large parts of multi touch interfaces and have quickly and frequently found that those patents don't hold up to closer scrutiny and claims get tossed out. Instead, they are now using patents on very specific features of iOS, like the over scroll physics. The lawsuit against Samsung, once all the claims on both sides were narrowed, really came down to 'don't make your phones look just like ours' and 'don't copy our OS down to minute details'.

I do hold the court/patent system responsible, but I hold the companies socially responsible for doing something they know is questionable.

I agree that in Samsungs case it was a case where the phones were similar, but it was not necessarily the case with the lawsuit against HTC. The question as far as looks go is how similar/different does a design have to be to not be "close" or a copy of Apple's design. That is the problem with the court case as they have not defined the boundary for such a broad design patent.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to ptrowski

The optimal solution is to gut the patent system and only allow patents on physical things. the fact people can patent "Look and Feel" of things is a big problem and does hold back technology.

With physical things patents are usually very specific. A new type of garage door opener has to be pretty detailed in its patent.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports



ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
reply to Jimothy

said by Jimothy :

said by ptrowski:

But yet Apple blatantly stole the clock design in iOS 6 and were caught.

patents and trademarks are not the same thing and the vast vast vast majority of timepiece dial designs are not protected under anything, there's a reason you can find 5 bajillion perfectly legal submariner homages and their isn't a single thing Rolex can do outside of their protected crown logo and name

Right, so that is why apple coughed up $21 million to use it? Nice try.
»www.slashgear.com/apple-cash-sum···2256573/
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org

Daemon
Premium
join:2003-06-29
Berkeley, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·webpass.net
reply to sk1939

said by sk1939:

I agree that in Samsungs case it was a case where the phones were similar, but it was not necessarily the case with the lawsuit against HTC. The question as far as looks go is how similar/different does a design have to be to not be "close" or a copy of Apple's design. That is the problem with the court case as they have not defined the boundary for such a broad design patent.

To the best of my knowledge, Apple didn't assert any design patents against HTC, so none of that case was about how HTC's phones looked.
--
-Ryan
I use Linux, OS X, iOS and Windows. Let the OS wars die.

sk1939
Premium
join:2010-10-23
Mclean, VA
kudos:10
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Verizon FiOS

said by Daemon:

said by sk1939:

I agree that in Samsungs case it was a case where the phones were similar, but it was not necessarily the case with the lawsuit against HTC. The question as far as looks go is how similar/different does a design have to be to not be "close" or a copy of Apple's design. That is the problem with the court case as they have not defined the boundary for such a broad design patent.

To the best of my knowledge, Apple didn't assert any design patents against HTC, so none of that case was about how HTC's phones looked.

One of the patents Apple sued on was design (afformentioned rectangle with rounded corners) as well as the use of a mutli-touch interface on a phone and others.

Daemon
Premium
join:2003-06-29
Berkeley, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·webpass.net

said by sk1939:

One of the patents Apple sued on was design (afformentioned rectangle with rounded corners) as well as the use of a mutli-touch interface on a phone and others.

No, I think you're wrong. The list of the first 20 patents Apple asserted against HTC is here: »www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/appl···eakdown/

They later added 5 more in a separate complaint: »www.fosspatents.com/2011/07/appl···int.html

None of those are design related patents.
--
-Ryan
I use Linux, OS X, iOS and Windows. Let the OS wars die.


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state
reply to Daemon

said by Daemon:

said by Metatron2008:

You actually got one right. Microsoft sued Barnes and Noble.

Apple has a long history of making good devices and then acting like it invented the entire market. You wanna also say that Apple invented the term App store?

I was talking about patents and mobile operating systems, not lawsuits from decades ago or those involving trademarks (which operate completely differently--if you don't sue on a trademark, you lose it by default). So you got me on the Nokia one, but the rest are not relevant in this context.

Stating Android v iOS is about Linux vs Unix is a little silly. The core is not where the controversies arise--nearly all of the lawsuits have been about interfaces not about core feature implementations. Some of them have been algorithmic, but none have involved the actual kernel of the operating system that I am aware of. (The only 'core' lawsuit I can think of is Oracle vs Google re:Android APIs)

And not all OSes share UI features. Apple likes to use Windows Phone as an example of how you can do things in a different enough way that you don't infringe, while still making a device that does all the things users want.

The microsoft one is related, as they actually sued for look and feel of various icons. They sued because a garbage can on windows looks similar to a garbage can on mac os.

And saying you have to sue based on a trademark is a rediculous method of excusing a company suing a grocery store, WHICH SELLS APPLES, for having an apple logo. That is bullying, from a company that doesn't want anybody else using it's 'forbidden fruit'.


digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2
reply to ptrowski

Well that was fast. Samsung is getting the corer out, forcing Apple to pay 20%, - $2.50 more for each mobile CPU - 200 million of them in 2012.

»www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2412011,00.asp
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke.


sk1939
Premium
join:2010-10-23
Mclean, VA
kudos:10
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Daemon

said by Daemon:

said by sk1939:

One of the patents Apple sued on was design (afformentioned rectangle with rounded corners) as well as the use of a mutli-touch interface on a phone and others.

No, I think you're wrong. The list of the first 20 patents Apple asserted against HTC is here: »www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/appl···eakdown/

They later added 5 more in a separate complaint: »www.fosspatents.com/2011/07/appl···int.html

None of those are design related patents.

Design of the GUI rather than the device itself.

Daemon
Premium
join:2003-06-29
Berkeley, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·webpass.net

1 edit

said by sk1939:

Design of the GUI rather than the device itself.

you can call them 'Design of the GUI', but they are still utility patents, not design patents.
--
-Ryan
I use Linux, OS X, iOS and Windows. Let the OS wars die.

Daemon
Premium
join:2003-06-29
Berkeley, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·webpass.net
reply to Metatron2008

said by Metatron2008:

And saying you have to sue based on a trademark is a rediculous method of excusing a company suing a grocery store, WHICH SELLS APPLES, for having an apple logo. That is bullying, from a company that doesn't want anybody else using it's 'forbidden fruit'.

This is how trademark law works. In order to prevent erosion of your trademark, you virtually have to sue over ridiculous non-infringement. Your trademark is only protected with a moat as far as you can sue. By suing as far as you possibly can, you keep that moat as large as possible. One missed lawsuit and the moat gets irreparably smaller.

Unlike patent law, where your rights remain whether you sue or not once the patent is issued, under trademark law, you automatically lose rights if someone infringes and you don't sue, and you lose them forever.

It's why Microsoft sued a student who ran a teenage web programming business called mikerowesoft.com.
--
-Ryan
I use Linux, OS X, iOS and Windows. Let the OS wars die.

sk1939
Premium
join:2010-10-23
Mclean, VA
kudos:10
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Daemon

said by Daemon:

said by sk1939:

Design of the GUI rather than the device itself.

you can call them 'Design of the GUI', but they are still utility patents, not design patents.

Fact of the matter is though that Apple has sued quite a few companies over some portion of the iPhone at some point in time.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to Daemon

said by Daemon:

said by Metatron2008:

And saying you have to sue based on a trademark is a rediculous method of excusing a company suing a grocery store, WHICH SELLS APPLES, for having an apple logo. That is bullying, from a company that doesn't want anybody else using it's 'forbidden fruit'.

This is how trademark law works. In order to prevent erosion of your trademark, you virtually have to sue over ridiculous non-infringement. Your trademark is only protected with a moat as far as you can sue. By suing as far as you possibly can, you keep that moat as large as possible. One missed lawsuit and the moat gets irreparably smaller.

Unlike patent law, where your rights remain whether you sue or not once the patent is issued, under trademark law, you automatically lose rights if someone infringes and you don't sue, and you lose them forever.

It's why Microsoft sued a student who ran a teenage web programming business called mikerowesoft.com.

So you are saying its okay to bully smaller companies who actually have equal right to similar things?

Nissan Motors is still bullying a guy who is actually named Nissan over his domain Nissan.com. Nissan motors claims they have more right to the domain than someone with Nissan as a surname.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

Daemon
Premium
join:2003-06-29
Berkeley, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·webpass.net

said by Kearnstd:

So you are saying its okay to bully smaller companies who actually have equal right to similar things?

Nissan Motors is still bullying a guy who is actually named Nissan over his domain Nissan.com. Nissan motors claims they have more right to the domain than someone with Nissan as a surname.

The premise of your question is an ad hominem. My personal feelings on the matter do not change in any way how trademark law operates. That said:

Morally, no. But I feel corporations are not bound by morals the way individuals are. Corporations are bound only by laws, so the most effective way to prevent the kind of bullying you're talking about is not to claim it's immoral but to change the laws so it's not legal.
--
-Ryan
I use Linux, OS X, iOS and Windows. Let the OS wars die.

sk1939
Premium
join:2010-10-23
Mclean, VA
kudos:10
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Verizon FiOS

said by Daemon:

Morally, no. But I feel corporations are not bound by morals the way individuals are. Corporations are bound only by laws, so the most effective way to prevent the kind of bullying you're talking about is not to claim it's immoral but to change the laws so it's not legal.

This is filed under "social responsibility" for companies. We all know the laws are not likely to change, at least for the better.

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

said by sk1939:

said by Daemon:

Morally, no. But I feel corporations are not bound by morals the way individuals are. Corporations are bound only by laws, so the most effective way to prevent the kind of bullying you're talking about is not to claim it's immoral but to change the laws so it's not legal.

This is filed under "social responsibility" for companies. We all know the laws are not likely to change, at least for the better.

Sadly corporate America lacks that. They seem to forget they can make barge loads of money without being complete assholes.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

Badonkadonk
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Dish Network
reply to Daemon

said by Daemon:

said by Metatron2008:

And saying you have to sue based on a trademark is a rediculous method of excusing a company suing a grocery store, WHICH SELLS APPLES, for having an apple logo. That is bullying, from a company that doesn't want anybody else using it's 'forbidden fruit'.

This is how trademark law works. In order to prevent erosion of your trademark, you virtually have to sue over ridiculous non-infringement. Your trademark is only protected with a moat as far as you can sue. By suing as far as you possibly can, you keep that moat as large as possible. One missed lawsuit and the moat gets irreparably smaller.

Unlike patent law, where your rights remain whether you sue or not once the patent is issued, under trademark law, you automatically lose rights if someone infringes and you don't sue, and you lose them forever.

It's why Microsoft sued a student who ran a teenage web programming business called mikerowesoft.com.

You can repair your trademark. It's difficult, but rights aren't necessarily lost forever. For example, Xerox has done a good job repairing their mark.

Also, Apple takes their trademark protection to extremes. I've been doing IP law for over 18 years, including trademarks. No other company for whom I've done trademark law was as loony as Apple, although Ty Industries was close.

By the way, your comments about patent law aren't quite accurate.
--
Awesome. More handouts, food stamps, welfare and entitlements to come. I'm so proud.

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

Don't forget Monster Cable for loony... they once sued an indoor minigolf place that had monster in its name.(no clue if they have tried to sue Monster Energy Drinks, But I am guessing the drink maker has a wallet too deep for a maker of overpriced cables to harass.)

and how loony you mention apple being, Didn't they once try and sue NYC over calling itself "The Big Apple"?

Actually how well has Xerox done? I know I have not heard the term Xerox a document in a long time.

I know Google is facing the old Xerox and Kleenex problem though. I once heard someone say they where going to Google something and they went to Bing...
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


Badonkadonk
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Dish Network

Regarding Monster and Apple, I don't know who advises these guys, but the craziness leads me to believe that someone's looking for billable hours.

Exactly, since the phrase "xerox this page" or "please xerox this for me" is no longer being commonly used, the mark hasn't become (or is no longer) generic. That's why they've successfully taken back their mark.

Exactly right on the Google thing. But no doubt the Google lawyers are well aware of the dangers.
--
Awesome. More handouts, food stamps, welfare and entitlements to come. I'm so proud.


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

said by Badonkadonk:

Exactly right on the Google thing. But no doubt the Google lawyers are well aware of the dangers.

appears very aware.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_%28verb%29

quote:
The transitive verb[1] to google (also spelled to Google) refers to using the Google search engine to obtain information on the Web. However, it can also be used as a general term for searching the internet using any search engine, not just Google. A neologism arising from the popularity and dominance[2] of the eponymous search engine, the American Dialect Society chose it as the "most useful word of 2002."[3] It was added to the Oxford English Dictionary on June 15, 2006,[4] and to the eleventh edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary in July 2006.[5] The first recorded usage of google used as a participle, thus supposing the verb, was on July 8, 1998, by Google co-founder Larry Page himself, who wrote on a mailing list: "Have fun and keep googling!"[6]

Fearing the genericizing and potential loss of its trademark, Google has discouraged use of the word as a verb, particularly when used as a synonym for general web searching. On February 23, 2003,[7] the company sent a cease and desist letter to Paul McFedries, creator of Word Spy, a website that tracks neologisms.[8] In an article in the Washington Post, Frank Ahrens discussed the letter he received from a Google lawyer that demonstrated "appropriate" and "inappropriate" ways to use the verb "google".[9] It was reported that, in response to this concern, lexicographers for the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary lowercased the actual entry for the word, google, while maintaining the capitalization of the search engine in their definition, "to use the Google search engine to seek online information" (a concern which did not deter the Oxford editors from preserving the history of both "cases").[10] On October 25, 2006, Google sent a request to the public requesting that "you should please only use 'Google' when you’re actually referring to Google Inc. and our services."[11]
on a side note while looking this up I discovered that at some point dry ice was a registered trademark as is/was plexiglass.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


Brendan
Warr Guitar is here

join:2000-07-14
Littleton, CO
reply to Count Zero

said by Count Zero:

It's back up over $11 today.

Yes, and still falling, longer-term. The trend is your friend.