Apple Wins $1 Billion Patent Case
- Started
- Last post
- 128 Responses
- qoob0
^ I also find that interesting.
- ETM0
Touchscreen (stylus IS optional) rounded corners, grid of icons... oh snap!!
- the multitouch slide gestures are remarkably similar to the apple iphone!omg
- Palm used to let you create your own, custom unlock gesture.ETM
- where do the music and headphones go?omg
- You likely think you are clever, but the palm did have head phones and played music.ETM
- And the MPMan and Diamond Rio were the first MP3 players... back in 1998.ETM
- I don't think this model ever played music. I think you are thinking of the newer zire31 and up modelsomg
- Sorry, I thought you meant Palm in general.ETM
- ETM0
Here's an example to ponder, in regards to Apple's ability to perfect other products (not in real reference to the Samsung case). But in the credit Apple unfairly receives for their consumer goods.
The assembly line, is almost always accredited to Henry Ford. Father of manufacturing innovation. I was taught this in school. However the assembly line was ACTUALLY created by Ransom Olds (Oldsmobile) 12 years (1901) before the Model T was mass produced (1913). Olds even had the patent.
Ford just made if better, more efficient. Basically what Apple does with other people's work and inventions. Is it fair that Apple gets so much credit for their work? That ignorant people assume so much of what Apple pushes out was created by them? Is it fair that we get taught Henry Ford invented the assembly line?
My point is, with so much of other people's/companies work behind their products, is it fair that they get to say "stop" on how innovations (and copies) flow? If more people did that further up the line, Apple wouldn't have many of their innovations. Do I think Apple is groundless, not at all. I think they have over extended their reach, however, and I think that people are so willing to extend that credit by their reputation only, than by fact and history. An example to that is that they could patent slide to unlock, when Palm had much prior art in that field. A patent that should never have been issued.
One last thought... Olds did not sue Ford, however, Ford, having gained further patents for assembly considered action against competitors... however:
"Ford at one point considered suing other car companies because they used the assembly line in their production, but decided against, realizing it was essential to creation and expansion of the industry as a whole"
- 20020
Speaking of cars
Do you know the story about the guy who invented the delay on windshield wiper?
- He's dead?babydick
- Saw that movie. greg kinnearmonospaced
- 20020
ETM
I am not talking simple influence. I am talking about purposefully copying for sake of profit.
the issue is very simple, business managers etc says "apple or google is successful, make it look like that"
- 20020
As well as designers who can't think for themselves. just copying because they have no originality.
why are american cars so damn ugly? they even tried copying, they are even bad at that.
i remember working on Ford Fusion. It was called a fusion because it took a back from Lexus, front from Honda, interior from BMW. At the consumer testing, they all said, it looks like someone mashed a Lexus and BMW together. The decision makers' directive was just make it work copy everything.
- Your point? Lexus, Honda and BMW should sue Ford? Copying doesn't equal success, what?ETM
- American cars are ugly by your POV. If Americans thought that, they wouldn't sell many. Again, I am missing the bigger point.ETM
- you dont get it because you dont value design like most people.2002
- And there you show your ignorance. You actually think the majority of the population values design like a designer.ETM
- I do value design. I recognize what Apple has done. If you really read my points, you would understand that.ETM
- You would understand WHAT I take issue with is deeper than that.ETM
- Those ho value design by the BMW, or the Apple product. You have exposed the very issue and what won;t change.ETM
- ho=who
by=buyETM
- ETM0
@2002
Are you trying to draw an an analogy between Apple and Robert Kearns? Kearns created an whole new feature to a product and was robbed. Apple refines existing products. Makes them sexy and desirable... I own several. Apple would have added more speeds to the existing intermittent wiper, made the washer arms white, with chrome accents and blue LEDs and catchy marketing.What what did Apple create outright with the iPod, iPhone or iPad?
iPod - Mp3 player was created in 1998 with patents going back to 1967/71. Diamond Rio was the first commercial one. The scroll wheel... nope, that was Synaptics, and Apple acknowledges that. Then it must be adding an actual harddrive for more storage... nope... that was Compaq in 1998 with PJB-100 ... 4.8 gbs (1200 songs).
iPhone - Touch screen phone, nope, IBM Simon (1992). Palm Treos, Windows Phones, HTC was the leader in touch screen phones until iPhone. App Store for sure... nope. Maybe on mobile, but the Linspire CNR store for Linux was 5 years before Apple. Also look further back at the APT project for Linux, to make a GUI means of selecting and installing apps.
iPad - We covered the app store above. Tablet patents go back to 1888/1915 (recognizing handwriting gestures)... seriously. And a working version goes back to 1956. In the 80's their was PenPoint OS. Microsoft coined the term Tablet computer in 2000 and created early consumer offered tablets for field work and medical.
So Apple has created very little, but refined and repackaged/repurposed A LOT. I love them for it. They are GREAT at it. The best even. But maybe they should be a little humble on some of the their claims at having created much of anything.
- 20020
ipod - other mp3 players existed but through design and itunes, it prevailed. I remember buying other mp3 players. hard to use and hated it. got ipod and found out how easy it was to use. the wheel interface which was not a new interface but they applied it to make it work.
iphone - yes other similar devices existed. I hated it at first when i got it. but realized the details and thought it went to design every aspect of it. it was designed from consumer perspective. again, nothing really new.
ipad - remember when everyone else was hot to trot on the tiny computer with limited HD space? Net Book? Yeah. Didnt work out.
I do agree that individually, they didnt invent something new. they added value to them by putting them together as a device and designed it well.
As for Kearns, what you saying is the same thing as what auto industry was stating. it was new, it was eventual. there was nothing new about it. the parts and methods were already existing. he just decided to put that intermittence to a windshield wiper with existing parts and methods.
This is same with apple, they took existing ideas and made it better. made it usable. they is what design is. most of us still think patent as something created out of thin air and no one has ever seen. it is the obviousness that makes the design great. you know it is good right now because it has proven it self.
if everything that apple has used have been invited previously, why didnt those device make it big?
- note: kearns "it wasnt new"2002
- You're regurgitating what I said. They refine and polish better than anyone, for consumers, but create little overall new.ETM
- over all new in terms of broad concepts.ETM
- As to why earlier devices often failed. Two common reasons, needed refinement and/or too soon for consumers.ETM
- Apples's other grand gift is timing. Knowing when a device's time has come, and how to make it consumable.ETM
- omg0
^^ Apple created very little?
I think you might be looking too close at technical features and not realizing that these could be just the notes to the song. When placed together, Apple created an musical piece that was uniquely Apple's. which all of Apple's competitors jumped on their bandwagon to tried to make a cover song to.
I for one like the idea that this case will force everyone to create a new product. With Apple, when they created products, you never confused them with other products. Apple had their own unique flair.
- By your argument, if there are no notes, you can't compose a song.ETM
- But if you really read what I write, I am not taking issue with Apple's design, I take issue with too much credit on what they feel they all out created... App stores for one.ETM
- feel they all out created. Aesthetics, usability... yes. Mobile OS, no. Android has every right.ETM
- They think they created the App store. No. The word App. No. Popularized, refined. Yes.ETM
- ernexbcn0
Just by looking at the failed Palm smartphones and new Windows Phones you can tell it's possible to do something entirely unique while offering similar functionality.
Samsung chose to just copy. People is nitpicking individual patents and implying they are ridiculous, but Apple was suing for all of them applied together.
And Samsung would have done the same if they were the ones being copied, let's be honest.
- But Samsung is Android. So are you talking the OS or the case designs?ETM
- ETM0
@omg
I pretty clearly stated that they combined things well. But I stand but how little they create, but how well they refine.
I am sorry, iOS for another example, was simply a refinement and enhancement of Palm OS concepts, and other older mobile operating systems, that they themselves took cues from desktop OS', both Mac and PC who in turn took their cues from Xerox PARC. Early Mac OS versions looked just like the Xerox Star, especially when on the monochrome screen of the Mac Classic.
- ernexbcn0
And this nugget that came from the trial was interesting:
"On Monday, an Apple executive testified that the company had licensed prized design patents to Microsoft Corp but with an "anti-cloning agreement" to prevent copying of its iPhone and iPad.
Apple had reached out to Samsung in 2010, hoping to strike an agreement with its rival on patent licensing before their dispute hit the courts, patent licensing director Boris Teksler said."
- ernexbcn0
@ETM on the Xerox deal:
"But here’s the most important fact: Nothing was “stolen.”
Whatever Apple got from those three days was bought and paid for as part of a fair, legal, above-the-table business deal between Xerox and Apple.At the time, Apple was still a year away from its IPO. Everybody wanted in. Apple was the hottest of hot companies. So Xerox and Apple made a deal: Apple would be granted 3 days of access to PARC in exchange for Xerox being allowed to buy 100,000 shares of Apple stock for $10 per share.
Apple went public a year later, and the value of that stock had grown to $17.6 million. Xerox paid a million for the shares, so essentially Apple paid Xerox $16.6 million for showing its research to Jobs and his team."
- Did I say steal? Don't put words in my mouth to justify your argument.ETM
- But Apple DIDN'T CREATE the GUI OS. But often insinuate they did and MS stole the whole concept from them.ETM
- MS copied bringing it to regular consumers, but didn't copy the concept.ETM
- That is a HUGE distinction.ETM
- I think he was quoting the article2002
- The point is that apple paid to look at the design cues and use it.2002
- That's a point? Point to what? Nothing I said. I only said all GUI OS' herald back to PARC.ETM
- It's come to point that to make yours, you are twisting mine. So I digress at this stage.ETM
- Loser!!!!!!2002
- Well played, sir. Well played, indeed.ETM
- that article total bullshit.. they bribed executives of Xerox to give them a demo and have Apple engineers rip everything off. Leave to Apple cult fansite to come out with "truth".monolith
- off. Leave to Apple cult fansite to come out with "truth". Adele Goldberg warned everyone that Apple will steal everything. The executives told her to just do it.monolith
- ernexbcn0
I know you didn't say they stole it, and I don't need to justify any argument here.
XEROX had something they didn't know how to market or they didn't care to market it for the consumers. Steve Jobs saw its potential and managed to create a product out of that paradigm, a deal was made and that's it.
Apple didn't invent the MP3 player but created the one that became the best selling. They didn't invent the PDA either but tried once with their Newton. They didn't invent the smartphone but disrupted the market with theirs, not only by being a computer company releasing a phone which was odd but also by not taking any crap from the operators. Phones before the iPhone were basically designed or crippled by the phone companies intentionally.
So they might not invent whole items, but they innovate a lot in key areas of them. Good examples are power management, the unibody manufacturing process, multi-touch technology.
They have either licensed or bought entire companies that developed technologies for the devices they sell.
- ernexbcn0
And yes, they didn't invent tablets either but at a time when everyone was thinking netbooks were the thing they came up with the iPad and right now there's not a tablet market per-se but an iPad market, given the % of it they own.
- And I agree Apple has a gift of knowing the right time to release/re-release a consumer product.ETM
- omg0
@ETM
I think you're taking the combination aspect too lightly, and again looking at technical features. If you compare songs, you'll find that none of them actually created the notes A, B, C, D, E, F, etc... and you can't create a song, unless you combine them together.
Apple iOS became a slimmed down version of their MacOS that predates Palm. I remember Palm as the handheld machine that had a clunky feature that recognized handwritten text. But one thing was for certain. You never mistook an Apple product for Palm. With the exception of the Newton, which met its end when Jobs returned.
Sure you can trace roots back to Xerox to a computer that never saw the light of day. The machine was crap, wasn't portable unlike the Macintosh to be a consumer product. You might as well have tried to put a mainframe computer on top of a desk. It's weight alone would have collapsed upon your legs.
- 20020
I remember when google used to say they will next go in to mobile os or hardware.
- 20020
Wasn't macOS based on Next platform?