02.19.12
Apple Versus Google When the Patent System Approves ‘Slide to Unlock’ as a Monopoly
Summary: News about patents with emphasis on Android
THE PATENT circus amuses no-one except patent lawyers and their clients who are plaintiffs (usually large corporations and patent trolls).
The Department of Justice misses another chance this week. It was an opportunity to stop patent aggressors like Microsoft and Apple from amassing more weapons and, suffice to say, the EU authorities let there be a balance of patent terror, to use the analogy coined by the FSFE (Free Software Foundation Europe). While the latter approval might be fine for Android and Google, it does not do much to advance Linux. Over at Bloomberg we find this new roundup and yet another that says:
Google Loses Bid to Disqualify Lawyers Suing Android Partners
Google Inc. (GOOG), the largest maker of smartphone software, lost a bid to have a law firm it hired to help obtain patents barred from working with rivals that are pursuing infringement claims on the company’s Android system.
Google sought to disqualify Pepper Hamilton LLP from representing Alexandria, Virginia-based Digitude Innovations LLC in a patent lawsuit that targets makers of Android-based phones, including HTC Corp. (2498) and Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) Members of the same law firm have worked on behalf of Google on the Mountain View, California-based company’s patent submissions for Android.
These battles are being waged by patent lawyers, who earn money no matter which side they fight for. It is a sad status quo where a system becomes utterly dependent on parasites. If a company gets sued by a bunch of lawyers, then it too may have no choice but to hire some of its own lawyers. It’s a deadly, self-feeding loop. It devours the industry, too, harming both producers and buyers.
Looking at Apple for just a moment, news reports speak of Apple as a victim or exciting patentor, never mind that Apple uses its patents to embargo competitors (harming everyone but Apple). The reality is, as some articles put it right at the headline, “Apple seeks to ban Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus, but it’s really going after Android 4.0″ (another headline says that “Apple tries to ban Ice Cream Sandwich”). This is Apple’s embargo strategy which motivated us to call for an Apple boycott. Here is Apple dealing another blow and another example of bias at the US ITC (favouring American companies, obviously). To quote: “Apple did not infringe patented technology owned by Android phonemaker HTC Corp, the United States International Trade Commission said yesterday, the latest ruling in the wide-ranging smartphone patent wars.”
At the same time, Apple is permitted to block Linux sales using the most trivial patents (more on that later). Sheer arrogance. Antennagate class action is the latest example of this arrogance.
The nature of competition rapidly devolves and as Matthew Siper put it the other day, “Blackberry does possess true value in its software patents, especially in an era in which companies use patents as a means to blockade the competition.”
Apple just can’t help itself. It keeps attempting and reattempting to block the latest and greatest of Android rather than concentrate on improving its own future products (the iPhone 4S was a disappointment). Apple is also suing Motorola over Qualcomm licensing now. Quoting the report:
Apple has filed a suit in San Diego federal court accusing Motorola of breaching its licensing agreement with Qualcomm over a chip used in the iPhone 4S.
And from the Samsung front:
Apple raised the stake in an intensifying global patent battle with Samsung by targeting the latest model using Google’s fast growing Android software, a move which may affect other Android phone makers.
Groklaw is meanwhile telling us what goes on in Oracle’s front, led by Steve Jobs’ best friend:
Oracle has told the court it wishes to withdraw its last claim of the ’476 patent, claim 14, no doubt having read Google’s letter to the judge asking for permission to file a motion for summary judgment of invalidity of claim 14. This is the last claim of that patent still in the case. The USPTO in December issued a final rejection of 17 of the 21 claims of this ’476 patent, anyway, including all seven of the patent’s independent claims, and while Oracle has until February 20 to appeal, the handwriting is on the wall. Whatever it decides about an appeal, claim 14, and hence patent ’476, is no longer in this litigation.
And according to this report, “Google Inc., the largest maker of smartphone software, plans to send a letter to standards organizations reassuring them it will license Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. patents on a fair and reasonable basis, according to two people with direct knowledge of the situation.
“The letter, to be signed by a senior Google lawyer, is likely to be sent by sometime today, according to the people, who asked not be named because the decision isn’t yet public. The move would come after a deadline passed for Google to submit remedies to the European Commission, which is evaluating the plan to buy Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion.”
When the approval was finally given we saw similar report from this Microsoft-friendly about Google looking for patent tax. This is the talking point we have heard for quite some time from Microsoft lobbyists, also when they tried to badmouth VP8/WebM. China was persuaded to look into it and one report was titled “China anti-monopoly bureau looking into Google/Motorola deal”. Actually, for monopoly abuse they should take a good look at CPTN, Nortel, etc. Google is on the defensive when it comes to patents. Reports like this one miss the real story:
Sure, the purchase of Motorola helps protect Google’s intellectual property. The cellphone maker’s several thousand patents shore up the walls protecting Google’s Android operating system from software and hardware rivals alike. But the company has made it clear from the start that its purchase wasn’t only about intellectual property — it was also about making gadgets.
This is partially defensive. If Motorola’s devices work well with Google’s own efforts in social networking, payment systems or games, it could blunt the threat of Facebook. Moreover, while Google’s attempts at creating phones of its own have been largely underwhelming, there’s potentially a big financial carrot if it can turn around loss-making Motorola. Apple has shown that hardware can generate 35 per cent margins when partnered with the right software, design, marketing and content.
It is most likely that the buyout was for patents and the remarks from Google intended just to save face, for many reasons we won’t go into in this post.
As one new report shows, more software ideas become patented now. As another report puts it, “Several Motorola mobile phones infringe on patented “tactile feedback” technology, Immersion Corp. claims in a lawsuit with the U.S. International Trade Commission.” The article is about Google promises to Motorola’s patents. While Apple sues Motorola over hardware it emerges that new trademarks may say something about Apple’s plans. Apple tries blocking Android devices using the infamous “slide to unlock” patent it attacked Motorola with. While Apple plays with biased regulators in the US and not in Asia, no wonder no justice is being done. Quoting another report about this:
Apple Inc did not infringe patented technology owned by Android phonemaker HTC Corp, the U.S. International Trade Commission said on Friday, the latest ruling in the wide-ranging smartphone patent wars.
The slide-to-unlock patent should really be invalidated. It is just about as ridiculous as that old patent on the progress bar. How can this be used for injunction?
A German court ruled on Thursday that Motorola’s smartphones infringe on an Apple patent that covers certain implementations of the iPhone’s “slide-to-unlock” feature. Presiding Judge Dr. Peter Guntz of the Munich I Regional Court awarded Apple a permanent injunction it can enforce against the sale or distribution of Motorola’s Android-based smartphones within the country.
Apple has lost a sense of shame. This is clearly not innovation. People should recognise that the patent systems are doing the unthinkable here. Let’s recall how an Indian company, Wipro, got software patents in the US. What for? Here comes another one:
Wipro Technologies, the Global Information Technology, Consulting and Outsourcing business of Wipro Limited (NYSE: WIT) today announced that it has been granted a patent by USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) for its StORM(Statistics Operations Research Matrix) methodology. Wipro ‘StORM’ is a system and method for software test suite optimization, achieved by generating an Orthogonal Array(OA) for software testing using the mathematical principles for OA.
Another company with a pending patent/application boasts:
patent-pending software service designed to make the selection and integration of topic-focused content fast and easy for users.
Here is another new example:
Bizideo, The Video Website Company, has released version two of The Video Website Wizard, its powerful patent-pending software, that allows individuals to easily set up custom video websites for businesses. This version gives users total control of building video websites without having to know HTML, Java Script or other programming languages.
The Video Website Wizard gives users precise fractional pixel control of design elements on the screen including graphics, pictures, text and video elements, said Bill Pelton president and CEO of Bizideo. It ties together multiple video viewers and playlists without the user having to write any complex codes to build the site, and enables users to build an effective video website easily.
DecisionBase brags about a software patent too [1, 2], one for dentistry. How about when life is affected by patent monopolies standing in the way? Or this? It’s becoming all about patents and not about products. It’s as though their output does not exist until it’s reserved. An example we gave earlier says that “TRA, Inc. [was] Awarded New Patent for Improvements in Using Big Data for Television Advertising Targeting” (press release was widely distributed).
How about when a company’s entire value is hinged upon patents? To quote this new example: “Last year, results included $1.4 million of stock-based compensation expense, $35,000 of restructuring expense, $157,000 of amortization of acquired intangible assets, $160,000 for impairment of an acquired intangible asset, and $94,000 of patent litigation cost.”
Putting all those examples aside, it is clear that the patent system is broken. It’s lethal sometimes. And patents like those which Apple is using against Linux should clearly be invalidated. Prior art for “slide to lock”, for example, is millennia old. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Michael said,
February 19, 2012 at 1:42 pm
I find your pro-plagiarism stance to be offensive. And, again, I am *not* saying it is a smoking gun in terms of your degrees… but when you are so strongly in defense of those who plagiarize and attack those who work against it then it is natural to wonder if you used this same philosophy in earning your degrees.
Can you say you did not? If not, can you say when your view changed? It is an interesting question that I suspect you will avoid.
walterbyrd Reply:
February 20th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
> I find your pro-plagiarism stance to be offensive.
Do you know what plagiarism means?
Please explain why you thing this article has a pro-plagiarism stance?
walterbyrd said,
February 20, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Apple invention or prior art?
– “I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong”
– “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”
– “We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.”
— Steve Jobs
– We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.
— Steve Jobs
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-10-18/
Now Apple is suing over auto-complete. Another entirely origianal Apple invention, I guess.
So what are Apple’s greatest mobile device inventions?
- rectangles
- round corners
- flat black screens
- horizontal speaker slots
- non-cluttered appearance
- thin profiles
- auto-complete
- slide-to-unlock
- green phone icon for phone
- envelop for mail icon
- gears icon for settings
- grid layout of icons
- “Multi-Touch” technology
- iBooks books on a shelf metaphore
- fading notifications without user intervention
- text in bubbles indicated by speaker
Here is what I am finding for possible prior art. I would be interested to know what others think. Please feel free to add anything I’m missing, or correct me if I’m wrong about anything.
Sharp JPN 1241638
I am not certain exactly what device this is, or when it came out. But, I think Europe eventually ruled that the iPhone is a knock-off copy of the Sharp JPN 1241638 and that Apple’s D’087 patent violated Sharp’s ’638 patent. That covered a flat black surface, maybe even rounded corners, and retangle shape.
Samsung SGH-Z610 – February 2006
- Gesture based multimedia touchscreen
- app drawer
- front and rear facing camera
- rounded corners
- 16 icons up on a desktop
- a speaker above the 3.5″ touchscreen
- physical round button w/ a play arrow icon below it
Samsung GridPad 1989
- seems that Samsung is not new to tablet devices
http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/6565/GRidPad-1910/
Samsung Origami Tablet PC 2006
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/08/hands-on-with-the-samsung-q1-origami/
http://www.mblast.com/files/companies/126343/Logo/JPEG/61436.ny1.jpg
Samsung SGH-F700 – 2007
- Released after iPhone, but before Apple’s 358 page long iPhone patent which was filed on September 5th 2007
Sony Ericsson 2002
- green phone icon (for that matter, don’t phone booths use a phone icon?)
- envelop mail icon
http://admiralzing.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/sony-ericsson-t68i.jpg
LG KE850, also known as the LG Prada 2006
- phone icon
- envelop mail icons
- capicitve touch screen
- what about that icon with the four dots? would that take you to a grid of icons?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada
Packard Bell Navigator 3.5
- reminds me of Apple iBooks patents – books on a shelf
http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/#fn1
Neonode N1m – not sure about the year
- slide to unlock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonode_N1m#N1m
Apple’s gears icon
- Oreilley software WebSite had a yellow gear for settings
- Atari ST in 1986 used a gears icon for the settings control panel
- Windows 95 used Gears for settings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows-95-Start-Button.png
The ‘134 patent – text in bubbles indicated by speaker
- besides ignoring pretty much every comic book ever created, there’s a system called “Habitat” from the 1985 that pretty much like what Apple patented, in terms of the arrangement of text into bubbles, with the horizontal layout being dictated by the speaker.
http://www.digitalspace.com/avatars/book/chtu/chtu1.htm#habitat
The ‘915 patent – Multi-touch scrolling and scaling
- 1994-1995 T3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUwYCbhFj1U
- is this an API patent?
The ’891 patent – fading notifications without user intervention
- filed in 2002
- see the Windows 2000 MFC API, and notice that the uBalloonTimeout parameter. That fades out the notification without user interaction.
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/shell/systemtray.aspx
walterbyrd said,
February 20, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Apple vs Prior Art
– “I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong”
– “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”
– “We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.”
— Steve Jobs
– We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.
— Steve Jobs
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-10-18/
Now Apple is suing over auto-complete. Another entirely origianal Apple invention, I guess.
So what are Apple’s greatest mobile device inventions?
- rectangles
- round corners
- flat black screens
- horizontal speaker slots
- non-cluttered appearance
- thin profiles
- auto-complete
- slide-to-unlock
- green phone icon for phone
- envelop for mail icon
- gears icon for settings
- grid layout of icons
- “Multi-Touch” technology
- iBooks books on a shelf metaphore
- fading notifications without user intervention
- text in bubbles indicated by speaker
Here is what I am finding for possible prior art. I would be interested to know what others think. Please feel free to add anything I’m missing, or correct me if I’m wrong about anything.
Sharp JPN 1241638
I am not certain exactly what device this is, or when it came out. But, I think Europe eventually ruled that the iPhone is a knock-off copy of the Sharp JPN 1241638 and that Apple’s D’087 patent violated Sharp’s ’638 patent. That covered a flat black surface, maybe even rounded corners, and retangle shape.
Samsung SGH-Z610 – February 2006
- Gesture based multimedia touchscreen
- app drawer
- front and rear facing camera
- rounded corners
- 16 icons up on a desktop
- a speaker above the 3.5″ touchscreen
- physical round button w/ a play arrow icon below it
Samsung GridPad 1989
- seems that Samsung is not new to tablet devices
http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/6565/GRidPad-1910/
Samsung Origami Tablet PC 2006
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/08/hands-on-with-the-samsung-q1-origami/
http://www.mblast.com/files/companies/126343/Logo/JPEG/61436.ny1.jpg
Samsung SGH-F700 – 2007
- Released after iPhone, but before Apple’s 358 page long iPhone patent which was filed on September 5th 2007
Sony Ericsson 2002
- green phone icon (for that matter, don’t phone booths use a phone icon?)
- envelop mail icon
http://admiralzing.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/sony-ericsson-t68i.jpg
LG KE850, also known as the LG Prada 2006
- phone icon
- envelop mail icons
- capicitve touch screen
- what about that icon with the four dots? would that take you to a grid of icons?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada
Packard Bell Navigator 3.5
- reminds me of Apple iBooks patents – books on a shelf
http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/#fn1
Neonode N1m – not sure about the year
- slide to unlock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonode_N1m#N1m
Apple’s gears icon
- Oreilley software WebSite had a yellow gear for settings
- Atari ST in 1986 used a gears icon for the settings control panel
- Windows 95 used Gears for settings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows-95-Start-Button.png
The ‘134 patent – text in bubbles indicated by speaker
- besides ignoring pretty much every comic book ever created, there’s a system called “Habitat” from the 1985 that pretty much like what Apple patented, in terms of the arrangement of text into bubbles, with the horizontal layout being dictated by the speaker.
http://www.digitalspace.com/avatars/book/chtu/chtu1.htm#habitat
The ‘915 patent – Multi-touch scrolling and scaling
- 1994-1995 T3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUwYCbhFj1U
- is this an API patent?
The ’891 patent – fading notifications without user intervention
- filed in 2002
- see the Windows 2000 MFC API, and notice that the uBalloonTimeout parameter. That fades out the notification without user interaction.
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/shell/systemtray.aspx
walterbyrd said,
February 20, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Apple invention or prior art?
So what are Apple’s greatest mobile device inventions?
- rectangles
- round corners
- flat black screens
- horizontal speaker slots
- non-cluttered appearance
- thin profiles
- auto-complete
- slide-to-unlock
- green phone icon for phone
- envelop for mail icon
- gears icon for settings
- grid layout of icons
- “Multi-Touch” technology
- iBooks books on a shelf metaphore
- fading notifications without user intervention
- text in bubbles indicated by speaker
Here is what I am finding for possible prior art. I would be interested to know what others think. Please feel free to add anything I’m missing, or correct me if I’m wrong about anything.
Sharp JPN 1241638
I am not certain exactly what device this is, or when it came out. But, I think Europe eventually ruled that the iPhone is a knock-off copy of the Sharp JPN 1241638 and that Apple’s D’087 patent violated Sharp’s ’638 patent. That covered a flat black surface, maybe even rounded corners, and retangle shape.
Samsung SGH-Z610 – February 2006
- Gesture based multimedia touchscreen
- app drawer
- front and rear facing camera
- rounded corners
- 16 icons up on a desktop
- a speaker above the 3.5″ touchscreen
- physical round button w/ a play arrow icon below it
Samsung GridPad 1989
- seems that Samsung is not new to tablet devices
Samsung Origami Tablet PC 2006
Samsung SGH-F700 – 2007
- Released after iPhone, but before Apple’s 358 page long iPhone patent which was filed on September 5th 2007
Sony Ericsson 2002
- green phone icon (for that matter, don’t phone booths use a phone icon?)
- envelop mail icon
LG KE850, also known as the LG Prada 2006
- phone icon
- envelop mail icons
- capicitve touch screen
- what about that icon with the four dots? would that take you to a grid of icons?
Packard Bell Navigator 3.5
- reminds me of Apple iBooks patents – books on a shelf
Neonode N1m – not sure about the year
- slide to unlock
Apple’s gears icon
- Oreilley software WebSite had a yellow gear for settings
- Atari ST in 1986 used a gears icon for the settings control panel
- Windows 95 used Gears for settings:
The ‘134 patent – text in bubbles indicated by speaker
- besides ignoring pretty much every comic book ever created, there’s a system called “Habitat” from the 1985 that pretty much like what Apple patented, in terms of the arrangement of text into bubbles, with the horizontal layout being dictated by the speaker.
The ‘915 patent – Multi-touch scrolling and scaling
- is this an API patent?
The ’891 patent – fading notifications without user intervention
- filed in 2002
- see the Windows 2000 MFC API, and notice that the uBalloonTimeout parameter. That fades out the notification without user interaction.
Michael Reply:
February 21st, 2012 at 5:49 pm
Yes, Jobs hated that Android was a, as you quote, "stolen product". Plagiarized. I agree that plagiarism is bad and think it is good to work against it. You take the opposite side and think it is fine for Google and others to push "stolen products". Just a difference in philosophy… but one where you know your side is not right or you would not go so far as to try to hide your views by twisting things as Apple being the aggressor.
As far as the "shameless about stealing great ideas" – yeah, Roy uses that quote out of context a lot. Now you are. So? How does using a quote of of context help your case… it shows I am right in how you have no pride in your own "side" on this. Here is more on that quote:
http://trw.gallopinginsanity.com/2011/09/08/apple
"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas. And I think part of what made the Macintosh was that the people working on it were musicians and poets and artists and zoologists and historians who also happened to be the best computer scientists in the world."
Jobs is not talking about stealing ideas from competitors; he is talking about taking ideas from many fields of human knowledge and using them to make the best products you can.
Serious question: can you understand the difference? If so, please explain it in your own words.
But be aware, if you do, you completely rip your own claims apart.
Then you posted a list which shows you have no idea what people value in Apple products. None. Hint: it is the user experience – you lists some aspects, in a vacuum. As I keep noting, you miss the forest for the trees. You have no understanding of the issues here… you just *want* Apple to be wrong. You have an emotional *desire* to see Apple be wrong but nothing to back it up (well, we can point to some missteps… those are inevitable). But on the general principle of plagiarism, you simply have *no* case. None. So you call Apple an aggressor for defending itself. To do so is a lie. I do not support dishonesty.
Michael said,
February 20, 2012 at 4:15 pm
You made up that claim. Apple never made such a claim. You made that up. When the best "attack" you can find against Apple is to lie, it shows you know you have no case.
Not only is this not true, this is laughably not true. And it shows how little you understand about the history of Apple and the whole concept of "rounded rectangles"
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.txt
That is right: Steve Jobs made a *huge* deal out of the fact that he and his team did *not* invent the rounded rectangle. Did not. And here you are – along with Roy – trying to twist truth into Jobs / Apple claiming they invented something they went to absurd lengths to show they did *not* invent. You have your story completely and utterly backwards. On and on, you just make things up. You and Roy lie about Apple to try to fight against their anti-plagiarism stance.
Show where Apple claimed to have invented each of those first. Not claimed to have used them in a single device or developed a distinct look and feel which included those, but actually invented them.
In other words, your arguements are against your own straw man.
With that said, I do not doubt that some of Apple’s claims might be wrong. I do not defend everything they say and do. But unlike Roy and his followers I agree with Apple that competition is good for all of us – but plagiarisim is bad
walterbyrd said,
February 20, 2012 at 11:14 pm
Sorry Mike, you are dead wrong. Look at the actual court filings. Apple most certainly did complain that the Galaxy was rectangular with rounded corners. And Apple got Galaxy banned on that bases. Never mind that Apple was outright lying. Yes, it’s been proven.
And Apple’s junk patents absolutely do include a patent for an icon with an image of a phone. And a patent for an icon with an image of gears. And even a patent for an icon with an image of an envelop. Among other obvious, and prior art, and otherwise outright silly patents.
Apple listed those “patents” in the lawsuits Apple filed. There is no denying it, it is in the official court records. Yes, I have seen them.
Now Apple is suing over slide-to-open, and auto-complete. Two more Apple “inventions” that Apple did not invent.
Go ahead, deny it all day. It’s in the court’s records.
Michael Reply:
February 20th, 2012 at 11:28 pm
Ah, the old you must be right because you say so defense. Yeah, I have little to come back against that one! LOL!
Oh, and why said Apple did not list the rounded corners as *one* item in a long list that showed the plagiarism?
Again: when you take each piece of of context you can lose the main point – the overall plagiarism. That is what you are doing.
I am against plagiarism. I agree with Apple for working against it. You and Roy are on the other side. So be it -people disagree all the time. But do not lie about what you are supporting: you want others to be able to emulate (plagiarize) Apple’s look and feel because Apple is successful and you feel others need to do much as they do (a least in terms of basic UI issues) in order to also be successful.
I am not denying you are missing for forest for the trees.
Apple has a right to keep their own innovations from being plagiarized. This is not about a single technology or feature but an overall usability. With that said, I have not looked into each of these examples and would not be surprised to see Apple be wrong on some of them. The courts handle these issues very, very poorly so Apple is being forced to protect itself and reduce plagiarism in some rather silly ways. No argument here!
I have repeatedly shown the proof that Samsuing copied Apple:
If you have a reasoned counter, such as showing how the images are incorrect, then show it.
Otherwise, just admit you are supporting plagiarism and at least we can have an honest discussion about the morality of who is doing what.
walterbyrd said,
February 21, 2012 at 8:54 am
Mike, do you know what “plagiarism” means? Do you know the difference between “plagiarism” and patent violations? I think Apple’s complaint refers to trade dress, and patent violations, not plagiarism. I don’t know if I’ve seen the word “plagiarism” is a lawsuit.
And I am not saying that I am right because I say I am right. I am saying I am right because of documented, verifiable, evidence. The court records, the lawsuit filings, those sorts of things. Yes Virginia, Apple did complain about a competitor creating a device that was rectangular, with rounded corners.
As for the overall design, as I have already pointed out, even that’s is a BS argument. Look up Sharp JPN 1241638 as it relates to Apple’s patent scam. Also look at Samsung SGH-Z610. Apple stold the overall design. And why should that be surprising, considering Jobs gloats about how Apple shamelessly steals great ideas.
Apple is not protecting themselves. Apple is throwing mud at the wall and hoping that something will stick long enough so that iPad 3 does not have to compete with Android ICS. That is the way patent bully scam artists, like Apple, operate.
Again, I have shown, practically everything Apple claims to have invented, including the overall design, is prior art.
Finally, I tell the difference between a Samsung Galaxy, and an Apple iDevice with my eyes closed. Anybody could.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
February 21st, 2012 at 9:21 am
This “plagiarism” claim never had anything to do with the case. It’s just being injected by an inflammatory Internet troll who is deparate for attention.
Michael Reply:
February 21st, 2012 at 11:33 am
In Roy’s world: Plagiarism has nothing to do with the fact Apple’s work is being plagiarized repeatedly.
Oh, Roy, that would be a great topic for your show. Care to face me voice-to-voice and see how well you can back *that* claim of yours?
Of course not: not even you believe that nonsense.
Michael Reply:
February 21st, 2012 at 11:31 am
Nor have I suggested you would. Again: the laws handle this type of stuff poorly. Here: prove me wrong – what laws should Apple be focusing on to better handle the paludism that has repeatedly been committed against them.
You will have dodges and side-issues, but no answers. So let us not pretend your above comment had any value. It did not, other than to show you are not willing to face – directly – the problem of plagiarism which Apple is facing.
Ah, so you are saying you are right about something that is not in contention. Got it. But why? Again: of course that was *one* of the items listed. One. On a a whole list that showed a pattern… not to say that this one thing was, by itself, wrong or evil. And, again, the laws handle this poorly.
How many times do we have to cover this same material? You are just not getting it! No offense but it is not complex!
If you think this is true then make your case. I am listening. But you will not make the case. You will not show how Apple made a device that looks and works and acts in largely the same way as any other company, at least in terms of their iOS devices.
An emotions reaction of yours. OK.
Again: an emotional reaction. Not very interesting to me.
Well, other than their own lawyer from about 10 feet away. I mean, give me a break – who do you think you are fooling? Here, again, is the data you have no response for:
You just pretend those do not exist and do not even try to show where they are wrong. Quite telling as to how you have no real belief in your claims.
Again: the question comes down to if plagiarism is OK or not. I say it is not. I also get there is a fuzzy line here where company’s *will* be inspired by others and not all inspiration is plagiarism…. and how the law handles all of this poorly (and inconsistently from place to place) so Apple (and others) end up pushing things that, in isolation, can be seen as being silly. You and Roy, with your pro-plagiarism stance, look for these "trees" in the "forest" to try to show how everything Apple is doing is, in general principle, wrong. But you have made *no* case to back that up. None. You just repeat it over and over. Then you note that sometimes Apple does not win cases, as though a legal system which supports those being plagiarized so poorly should be expected to side with those being plagiarized every time. That is irrational. The fact Apple has done so well in the courts is actually pretty amazing.
Hey, why don’t we ask Roy to let us be on his show and we can discuss this one-on-one. I admit I am not an expert in the law in any way so he may get his wish to have me be "shown up". He would love it. I am game.
I bet Roy is not (he fears having his ideas questioned in such a format)… not sure about you.
walterbyrd said,
February 22, 2012 at 10:22 am
Make my case? My case has been made many times, much better than could ever make it.
Master of Unlocking: Apple Patents Swipe-to-Unlock Despite Prior Art
http://www.dailytech.com/Master+of+Unlocking+Apple+Patents+SwipetoUnlock+Despite+Prior+Art/article23116.htm
Slide To Unlock Patented By Apple Despite Prior Art
http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/10/26/slide-to-unlock-patented-by-apple-despite-prior-art/
HTC Calls Apple an Uncompetitive Lawsuit Drama Queen
http://www.dailytech.com/HTC+Calls+Apple+an+Uncompetitive+Lawsuit+Drama+Queen/article22136.htm
DECLARATION OF ITAY SHERMAN IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR APRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2011cv01846/239768/172/0.pdf?1314080813
Apple sues Samsung: a complete lawsuit analysis
http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/
Michael Reply:
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:16 am
Make your case.
Yes. Please.
Not some details… your general support for plagiarism. That is the discussion.
Your “argument” is that in the fight to stop the obvious plagiarism, a situation the laws handles poorly, Apple has made some rather silly claims… which is not in contention. I have asked what they could have done better to help reduce the plagiarism… and you just repeat yourself… unable to move forward.
You show no understanding of the issue. The issue is not slide-to-unlock and if Apple is right or wrong in this specific claim… the issue is, as you quoted, if it is OK to try to market a “stolen product”. I say it is not – though I have also noted there is a very fuzzy line between plagiarism and merely being inspired by competitors (which will happen and is fine in my book).
Here: let me help you. Given how you have *no* case to make, if you want to make a reasoned case the tact to take is how others are not crossing the line and is merely being heavily inspired by iOS / iPhone but not “really” plagiarizing Apple. I think this would be a hard case to make, but at least it would be on topic and one where you show some level of understanding of the issues being discussed.
Warning: keep in mind I have already posted links that pretty much prove the case of the plagiarism, at least in the case of Samsung… and you have only been able to run. But at least it gives you a place to focus on to *try* to make sense and to work toward showing some level of understanding.
Best of luck to you! If you succeed in making a reasoned argument it will at least make things interesting – currently your mindless repetition is a bit boring. But at least you get Roy’s support.
Hey, why don’t you, Roy, and I all talk about this on his show. You two can really make your point there and show how much you understand on the topic. Have fun ripping me apart. I would *love* it.
But you and Roy will not agree to that. Quite telling, eh? It is not as if you guys really believe your story.
walterbyrd said,
February 22, 2012 at 12:20 pm
It seems that no matter how many times I answer your questions, and prove my case, you just keep re-asking the same question, over, and over again.
For the – I don’t know – 5th time. Yes, I get your point. You are going on about the vague assertion of “overall look.” As I have already mentioned, that is called trade dress – look it up if you don’t believe me.
And, yet again, let me point out that claim of Apple’s has been addressed, by an expert, and in exhaustive detail. Yet again, I will refer you to ”
DECLARATION OF ITAY SHERMAN IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR APRELIMINARY INJUNCTION” this was actually entered in the court’s documents, and addresses all of Apple’s straw grasping, manufactured, concerns – including trade dress.
As Itay makes very plain: none of Apple’s assertions, including Apple’s assertions about trade dress (overall look) are valid. Apple stold their trade dress – i.e. the overall look. Furthermore, as is explained in detail, Samsung’s design is substantially different from Apple’s design in many ways.
Again, this is all explained, in exhaustive detail, by an expert.
Now, why not give me the same tired hoopla yet again, about overall look, so I can prove you wrong, yet again.
Michael Reply:
February 22nd, 2012 at 12:47 pm
You have not answered the question once. You keep dodging. When I note the overall topic: plagiarism, and acknowledge that the laws handle this poorly and that when you pull specific claims out of context (and some even in context) you can make Apple look silly, you respond by doing *exactly that* and then claiming you have answered the question.
In other words: you are being irrational and ignoring the point in the *exact* way I keep noting, then whining when your repetition does not somehow convince me that your flawed BS which is hardly even relevant to the primary question of plagiarism of a *system* and a general ways of working on one. Well, your irrational whining is not going to convince me.
Again: I gave you a valid way to try to refute the idea that Apple is fighting plagiarism – and you ignored that. Your actions show you have no case – if you thought you had a case you would respond to to the arguments and not dodge them. Then you keep saying Apple stole things and never show any support. You claim their are documents that show it…. but offer no links and no quotes. And you ignore that laws are not consistent across the globe.
So you have no argument.
Apple is against plagiarism. You think they are wrong to fight against it. Unless you can add something new I think we can just leave it there. Oh, and remember the fact that Samsung, at least, plagiarized Apple has been shown beyond any doubt:
Shall you talk about rounded corners in response? LOL!
TiddlyPom said,
February 23, 2012 at 11:42 am
This just serves to illustrate how stupid the current (USA and UK) patent system is and how Apple and Microsoft are making use of this idiotic broken system to try and prevent other companies competing with them. The ‘slide to unlock’ metaphor has been around probably a decade before Apple first made use of it. If Apple really cared about its intellectual ‘innovation’ then I might be sympathetic – but it doesn’t.
What it wants to do is to prevent Android (or for that matter anybody else) competing (fairly) with it by any means possible so that it can continue its IT duopoly with Microsoft (Apple on high end Phones/PCs – Microsoft on the others). That is not (under any circumstances) a legitimate or fair use for patents. I really hope that Motorola (under governence of Google) wins major patent victories against Apple and Microsoft because then the current incumbent bullies might start to be reigned in a little. It is about time that they were.
The real battle here is open source vs proprietary software – i.e. MINDSHARE. If open source solutions start to win (and they are albeit slowly) then Mr and Mrs Average start to realize “Hey we don’t need to pay Microsoft or Apple for software anymore!” That is the REAL battle here and what Apple, Microsoft (and others too like Oracle + other hangers on like anti-virus companies like Symantec and MacAfee) feel they need to win at all costs otherwise – they become irrelevent.
A bit like the arguments in favor or Apple’s patents (above).
Michael Reply:
February 23rd, 2012 at 11:56 am
Many companies compete with them. Look at MS and OSs. How many can you think of? Hint: look at distro watch, they keep a list of Linux based OSs – many of which are focused on very similar areas as is desktop Windows. And, of course, Apple completes there as well.
The idea there is not competition is a farce. The idea that there is not *decent* competition, of course, is very true. What Linux distro offers a truly competitive environment to the competition. None. That is the problem. It is tied to the KDE / Gnome split, the weaker applications, etc. It simply is not as good *for most people*.
Face it: what other freely available and easy-to-get product has ever failed so badly (in terms of usage) as has desktop Linux? Few if any. If and when desktop Linux improves its quality, of course, it will gain a lot more users. And notice there has been a focus on usability over the last few years… and an uptick in desktop Linux usage. What a shock!
An interesting and unsupported fiction where you completely ignore the question of plagiarism.
What an absurd thought: remember: Apple is a heavy supporter of OSS. Much of OS X is OSS. Much of iOS is OSS. WebKit is OSS. And they include a lot more with their products. The idea that they are somehow against OSS is a complete fantasy not based on *evidence*.
So the OSS needs to make products which do that. But, please, without plagiarizing. That is all I ask. And there is plenty of excellent OSS that does not plagiarize.