I was reading a couple of news stories that state apple is trying to patent Hydrogen fuel cells for mobile devices. I was thinking "Congratulations Apple that is the type of innovation we need." However then I learned that Apple not only does not have a working prototype or a solid methodolgy, But they are patenting the fuel cells because they are following another research groups work that will make Hydrogen fuel cells more feasable. Unless Apple gets its act together and finances its own reasearch into this field and comes up with a working methodolgy and solution I believe this patent application should be thrown out, and the ACTUAL reaserchers granted all patent protection.
Article on apples patent application http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Pate...l+CellPowered+Mobile+Devices/article23589.htm
Article talking about the researches apple is preying upon: http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher...en+Fuel+Cells+More+Practical/article23164.htm
Well that's just great. They'll probably get what they want, they always do. The whole patent system needs to be redone.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using xda premium
hungry81 said:
I was reading a couple of news stories that state apple is trying to patent Hydrogen fuel cells for mobile devices. I was thinking "Congratulations Apple that is the type of innovation we need." However then I learned that Apple not only does not have a working prototype or a solid methodolgy, But they are patenting the fuel cells because they are following another research groups work that will make Hydrogen fuel cells more feasable. Unless Apple gets its act together and finances its own reasearch into this field and comes up with a working methodolgy and solution I believe this patent application should be thrown out, and the ACTUAL reaserchers granted all patent protection.
Article on apples patent application http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Pate...l+CellPowered+Mobile+Devices/article23589.htm
Article talking about the researches apple is preying upon: http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher...en+Fuel+Cells+More+Practical/article23164.htm
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmm...Hydrogen fuel cells already exist. Apple didn't invent the technology.
maybe hydrogen fuel cells as battery in mobile phone or tablets...
That's evil apple. Unless you are in talks with the other research group about it, that's just evil to take someone else's idea.
$1 gets you a reply
Ideas are just words
If they want to patent a hydrogen fuel cell for phones,good for them. Someone needs to do it but they cannot patent something they do not have. You don't actually have to build the thing to get a patent. You do, however, have to be able to describe it in such a way that someone COULD build it.
An idea and a dollar might get you a coke but working schematics are the real brass ring here.
they better not grant patent to Apple for a tech they did not even invent.
ridiculous.
hydrogen fuel cell tech should be available to all for benefit of all.
typical Apple shenanigans...
Nuenjin said:
If they want to patent a hydrogen fuel cell for phones,good for them. Someone needs to do it but they cannot patent something they do not have. You don't actually have to build the thing to get a patent. You do, however, have to be able to describe it in such a way that someone COULD build it.
An idea and a dollar might get you a coke but working schematics are the real brass ring here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tell that to the scientists that thave spent their careers researching it.
Nuenjin said:
If they want to patent a hydrogen fuel cell for phones,good for them. Someone needs to do it but they cannot patent something they do not have. You don't actually have to build the thing to get a patent. You do, however, have to be able to describe it in such a way that someone COULD build it.
An idea and a dollar might get you a coke but working schematics are the real brass ring here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Though I don't disagree about patenting a mobile phone fuel cell, I do disagree with the kind of patent. I am a firm believer that a patent should never be awarded without an actual working model. Anyone can describe something so well that it seems it can be built. But the problem is, it may or may not be able to be built. There's a lot of trial and error in creating.
The US Patent documentation does not require a working model for typical interactions. Others on XDA have commented that the US patent system is broken and needs reform, I am not commenting on that aspect.
But the directive to describe ones invention so others can build it means specific drawings, schematics and technical language that most people will not understand unless they are engineers of the specific field of the device in question.
Just because some Chinese outfit claims to be able to supply you with top of the line hydrogen cells for your droid 2, with details and a good website, doesn't mean they can.
Let not your hearts be troubled. Even if Apple finds a way to sink billions into a hydrogen battery, others will find a way that does not infringe on their precious patent. And in the end, it will be a good thing for the mobile device market.
The thing that Apple keeps forgetting is that if they win part of a lawsuit, which is akin to a grumpy old man yelling at the kids to get off his lawn, they are actually pushing android and hardware manufacturers to find new ways to build phones. That means we win.
That would be cool and effecent
Nuenjin said:
The US Patent documentation does not require a working model for typical interactions. Others on XDA have commented that the US patent system is broken and needs reform, I am not commenting on that aspect.
But the directive to describe ones invention so others can build it means specific drawings, schematics and technical language that most people will not understand unless they are engineers of the specific field of the device in question.
Just because some Chinese outfit claims to be able to supply you with top of the line hydrogen cells for your droid 2, with details and a good website, doesn't mean they can.
Let not your hearts be troubled. Even if Apple finds a way to sink billions into a hydrogen battery, others will find a way that does not infringe on their precious patent. And in the end, it will be a good thing for the mobile device market.
The thing that Apple keeps forgetting is that if they win part of a lawsuit, which is akin to a grumpy old man yelling at the kids to get off his lawn, they are actually pushing android and hardware manufacturers to find new ways to build phones. That means we win.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The sooner Apple loses these patent suits, if they do, the sooner they will bring out new products that will have to compete. Right now Apple is just following the path of least resistance. They are being efficient financially and trying not to have to spend much on new products. In a sense, they are like an anal-retentive person who is so tight with their money they squeak when the walk. They are cleaning their plate to a polish and getting all they can on what they currently have before spending money on new and improved products. This ensures they've done all they can to maximize survivability.
Nuenjin said:
Let not your hearts be troubled. Even if Apple finds a way to sink billions into a hydrogen battery, others will find a way that does not infringe on their precious patent. And in the end, it will be a good thing for the mobile device market.
The thing that Apple keeps forgetting is that if they win part of a lawsuit, which is akin to a grumpy old man yelling at the kids to get off his lawn, they are actually pushing android and hardware manufacturers to find new ways to build phones. That means we win.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For literal infringement that might be true, but the doctrine of equivalents makes it expensive to find alternatives that do not infringe upon a patent.
Nuenjin said:
The US Patent documentation does not require a working model for typical interactions. Others on XDA have commented that the US patent system is broken and needs reform, I am not commenting on that aspect.
But the directive to describe ones invention so others can build it means specific drawings, schematics and technical language that most people will not understand unless they are engineers of the specific field of the device in question.
Just because some Chinese outfit claims to be able to supply you with top of the line hydrogen cells for your droid 2, with details and a good website, doesn't mean they can.
Let not your hearts be troubled. Even if Apple finds a way to sink billions into a hydrogen battery, others will find a way that does not infringe on their precious patent. And in the end, it will be a good thing for the mobile device market.
The thing that Apple keeps forgetting is that if they win part of a lawsuit, which is akin to a grumpy old man yelling at the kids to get off his lawn, they are actually pushing android and hardware manufacturers to find new ways to build phones. That means we win.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice to meet some who is on the same lines as me.
Like I said, It's always best to just let things run its course. Let the fruit people do what they want to stay in the market.
Related
WHAAAAT HTC trying to take down the iPhone!?
HTC has achieved somewhat of a moral victory when their May 2010 patent counter claim at the International Trade Commission against Apple was not laughed out of court.
The International Trade Commission said it would take up the investigation, which has to do with "certain portable devices and related software."
HTC claims Apple infringes 5 of their patents, and is asking the commission to ban the imports of key Apple mobile products into USA. Typically the ITC moves much faster than federal courts, and we could see the whole issue come to a head in only a few months.
HTC is responding to an earlier patent challenge involving 20 patents which Apple took to the ITC and the U.S. District Court in Delaware.
While the patents appeared mostly directed at HTC’s Android work, HTC has recently entered into a licensing agreement with Microsoft which ironically may provide some protection for their Android products.
So really what HTC is saying is: "WE ARE NOT! going to let you walk all over us" because suing... is a game of 2.
Full article can be found Here
Oh thank God someone has the balls. It's probably too much to hope that Apple's new iPhone gets delayed, or even better...recalled...lolol.
Could you imagine the look on the poor schmucks face at the moment he goes to get his shiny new POS iPhone rung up and the clerk goes, "Whoops, sorry buddy, but I can't sell you this!". Will there be a black market for iPhones?
Again, if only if only...it's just too much to hope.
~Jasecloud4
lol I don't want to rain on anybody's parade through Cupertino, but this is actually fairly standard practice in patent law (and other types as well)...this countersuit is HTC's way of saying "No, we're not going to settle, and we're fully prepared to go 9 rounds with you over this". Companies often do this as a way to strengthen their legal position when defending against the original claims. i.e. "not only are we not infringing on your patents, you are infringing on ours!"
So, yes it's a good sign that HTC has chosen this route vs copping to a quick settlement or licensing terms...but it's not exactly groundbreaking either.
I know, but sometimes lawsuits can have unexpected results. Maybe I just hate Apple a little too much, but massive recalls, psychotic hysteria on the part of Apple users at the loss of their iPhones, and an overall general anger at Steve Jobs is a small part of dream I have lolol...
I think this was posted a while back on Engadget. Anyhow, this is a good thing. It shows how far HTC has come.
It's unlikely that Apple will lose the case, but I'm certain that HTC can get them to drop the bull****.
Patents in the US are so horribly executed.
jasecloud4 said:
I know, but sometimes lawsuits can have unexpected results. Maybe I just hate Apple a little too much, but massive recalls, psychotic hysteria on the part of Apple users at the loss of their iPhones, and an overall general anger at Steve Jobs is a small part of dream I have lolol...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL yes I admit that's a damn funny vision
PoisonWolf said:
Patents in the US are so horribly executed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Amen! There's companies that make more off of their patent portfolios than from any actual prodcut or service they sell, and it's worse in the IP sector than anywhere.
Dude the only reason I hate apple is because they think they OWN YOU I mean think about it steve jobs iPhone is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than HTC.
HTC says you need a phone that gets you and apple says YOU NEED THIS phone just because we are apple.
I hate that! its like monopoly all over again! ITS ABOUT DAM TIME SOME ONE STEP UP TO THEM!
even if HTC won, apple wouldn't be made to recall the product. They can't, once its sold it's sold (unless its an app from the app store, or a book on the amazon reader thingy where they can just delete it, of course, hehe, and even then, most lawyers agree that would be technically unlawful))
You, the buyer cannot be penalised for the sellers law breaking/mistakes. There won't and never will be a forced recall in these cases.
no they wont recall the phones yet they will spend millions rectifying software on the iPhone in order to step outside of infringements which is good enough for me as Apple are self obsessed wan**rs in my personal experience buying Apple products quickly reflects upon your own personality too,
HTC in my opinion are just flexing their Muscles that they have acquired by taking some microsoft steroids but in all fairness it is about time Apple get slapped in the face - maybe this will make them realise they cant do what they want
i love legal battles between companies especially smaller vs bigger, and in this case the smaller will probably win =]
I'm so happy this took a strange turn. HTC should have a voice... they have been producing touch screen phones far longing than apple. i think HTC knows they screwed up leaving Microsoft in charge from developing state of the art touch technology. i don't think its right for one company to with hold such a standard feature. Its like Intel saying they patented the computer's cpu and chipset, and motherboard, so anyone else following this directly be sued. also suing for monetary is lame, but suing to peace is acceptable in my book. everyone wins (besides neither will ever win the war, but rather pay to win one expensive battle, which are crippling fees to lawyers and officials who decide their fate. Since they both bring in lots of cash flow, this system wont allow this monopoly to happen) In the end they'll just compete with technology, which as a consumer we get the best technologies for the lowest price point (currently apple wants to put that hurting on consumers wallets.
Apple is afraid. it has been confirmed that T Mobile USA will launch apple product next month in July. Apple has expanded its market in despite of android replacing the popular growth of Blackberry users. Now apple wants a piece of that market, and they have agreed to jump into other markets to obtain that. apparently At&t can only pay for a timed launch for a product and can not force another company to deal directly with them, unless of course they purchase that company out...
This has been on the HTC website for some time now. I'm surprised nobody made a thread about this sooner....
Just released Today. Repost from http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1135896
I figured it get more exposure here than there.
Apple's newly awarded patent gives it ownership of the capacitive multitouch interface, spelling big trouble for rival smartphone makers, say patent experts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Apple could conceivably restrict makers of touchscreen smartphones, tablets, and other mobile devices from selling their products in the U.S. More likely is that Apple would reach a settlement with such competitors and start licensing its patented technology for a tidy new income stream.
If Apple does decide to play hardball and squeeze out rivals rather than set up cross-licenses, the source said, it's entirely possible that a court could find it in the public interest to scrap the patent rather than allow a monopoly on what has become a defining interface for an entire category of consumer devices."
Here is The Patent:
This changes everything. Now Apple can rest peacefully about it's continued existence in the face of Android's dominance in the smartphone market. Apple can require Google to license it's multi-touch tech and possibly throttle Android's dominance.
Wow apple... Yet another low blow to the Android community, how can they patent the idea of multiple inputs on a touch screen?
That's like putting a patent on fire...
Sent from my Zio using XDA Premium App
I'm gonna patent keyboards, then y'all be really screwed
NewZJ said:
I'm gonna patent keyboards, then y'all be really screwed
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
haha for real huh? With this patent and the iPhone 5 coming out i guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.
How can you patent something that already exists elsewhere?
PharmCAT said:
How can you patent something that already exists elsewhere?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It didn't exist when Apple applied for the patent. 3 years ago Apple started working on multi-touch display tech and it was unheard of until Apple revealed work on it. They just now got awarded the patent. It took 3 years of the the system to get to it.
This is really nothing new, companies do this all the time. In order to create x86 base cpu cores, AMD licenses out x86 and other instruction sets from Intel, Intel licenses out x64 instruction sets from AMD, and there are others to note.
If apple decides to sue everyone and becomes ridiculous and extremely lame, then it doesn't have to mean its the end of the world.. who knows, maybe someone such as htc will design a new line of touch screens that are superior to capacitive touch
Now is it for multi touch displays in general, or is it for like 2 finger touch or something like that?
Edit-It looks like it's for 2 finger touch, N and M being the amount of fingers. To get out of the license fee, they could try to use displays that use more than 2 fingers if the licensing fee is too much.
wow. Putting patent on multi touch screen is like Toyota (other auto maker) patenting number of tires on cars.
Sounds about right. I just hope this doesn't mean a price hike for non-Apple consumers. And I especially hope this doesn't somehow allow them to monopolize the touchscreen market.
Sent from my Inc using Nil's Business Gingersense. Now that's Incredible.
I know this sounds awful for us android users but it could be the greatest thing. With phone makers not allowed to use capaacitive screens, this almost forces them to use Surface Wave (SAW) screens. They also allow multi touch but are completely different. If you look them up they seem even better than capactive screens. They were considered unpracticle for phones because they were not resisitant to dust/water/dirt (meaning this stuff would just linger on the screen). But some phone makers have succesfully made covers, per say, for these that completely wipes out this problem. One major advantage is that they are scratch resistant and completely finger print resisitant. Also, while capacative screens only let through about 85% of the light, these screens let through about 92% on the low end. Some high-end screens have even let through 98%. This allows for theses screens to have the absolute best display/resolution. Look here to see the great specs.
http://www.softtouch.co.in/saw.htm
e334 said:
If apple decides to sue everyone and becomes ridiculous and extremely lame, then it doesn't have to mean its the end of the world.. who knows, maybe someone such as htc will design a new line of touch screens that are superior to capacitive touch
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kind of like how some Japanese companies are investing in alternatives to rare earth minerals which the Chinese are considering restricting. There's always a way around an obstacle. HTC, the best phone maker in the world, will no doubt have an alternative to capacitive displays. It might be a few pennies more expensive than current displays, but would certainly allow the industry to continue on.
<insert your favorite lawyer joke here>
One day you will come to realize the scope of this idiocy and then you might even want to kick all the lawyer's asses, but it might be too late already. The rest of the world will be speaking Chinese.
P.S.
MartyLK said:
It didn't exist when Apple applied for the patent. 3 years ago Apple started working on multi-touch display tech and it was unheard of until Apple revealed work on it. They just now got awarded the patent. It took 3 years of the the system to get to it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Extreme BS. http://cs.nyu.edu/~jhan/ftirtouch/
If you can't beat the competition, buy/patent it.
Microsoft Surface anyone?
They had the first prototype back in 2003.
I wonder how their patent differs...
Sometimes I wish I was a hitman. Id eliminate the idiots allowing these patents..
#FlameBait
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
xaccers said:
Microsoft Surface anyone?
They had the first prototype back in 2003.
I wonder how their patent differs...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Almost all these new patents are absolutely not new. The problem being the FUBARed U.S. patent system. In a sane system, you do no grant patents without any review like USPTO and do not tell the competitors "go sue them in case you have objections". (Will rather non commment the SW patents nonsense.)
Not to mention, that the language has become completely incomprehensible in order to obscure the nature and scope of the "patent" as much as possible for future patent racketeering purposes.
Just another example (probably, at least, though I'm not certain) of the patent and copyright systems running amok.
This better not put a major dent in the Android market. Hopefully at worst it'll force Android phones to become even more competitive.
Yes, yes, technically the Google-Motorola deal still isn’t final. In other words, anything could still go wrong and Motorola may just back out of the big deal of the moment.
But for now, we’re still all delirious about how Google has announced its near-definite purchase of Motorola Mobility, makers of such landmark phones as the RAZR of yesteryear and the Droid series.
And yet Google is not a hardware firm, while Motorola Mobility (let’s just call them Motorola for simplicity) is all about the hardware. So pundits have been abuzz about how Moto may not be a good fit for the Google ad-based ecosystem, or how its presence in Google’s arsenal could actually be a liability when dealing with other phone makers.
Well, here’s what I think: I think it can work… but Google will have to break up Motorola.
The way I see it, Motorola has four core sources of value:
•The patent portfolio, which has been Google’s target all along
•Manufacturing capabilities
•People and talents
•The brand legacy
Google needs two of these cores and can do without the other two. Can you guess which ones?
Yup. Patents. And people.
Therefore, if I were Google CEO Larry Page, here’s what I’ll do after the acquisition process has been completed:
•Move the patent portfolio from Motorola’s assets into Google’s assets – yup, let Google own them directly
•Reorganize Motorola so that Google gets to pluck some of their more brilliant groups and talents. Larry Dignan of ZDNet says there’s gold in Motorola’s enterprise sales team. I’d go further and say take them out and create a separate Google-Moto enterprise SWAT team to help bundle the entire Google experience
•Spin off Motorola into a fully-owned but autonomous design and manufacturing operation, with a Google-appointed board of directors… and with no patents of its own for now
As a Google-owned corporation, Motorola benefits from getting cheap (or free) use of the patent portfolio which it developed in the first place. And they still get to do their own thing like before… except now they have to do Android the way Google wants them to do Android. Bonus: no cash flow worries.
And with Motorola being a separate entity, partners like Samsung and HTC will have peace of mind.
Extreme case: Google strips all patents out of Motorola, and then SELLS Motorola off again since it doesn’t have any use for a hardware firm.
Google, meanwhile, will find itself in the pleasant situation of becoming a patent repository. They will realize that a patent is, after all, information… and hey, they’re in the information business, right?
So this may lead to a potentially new business model. Right now, they have Google Patents, and it serves only as a helpful but non-revenue-generating search engine. But what if it could become a revenue-generating search business too?
What if businesses search for patents that they need and, right next to the results entries, they can click on a rights purchase plan that they can take right there and then? Google then becomes the financial intermediary between inventors and commercial developers… and they get a royalty cut per unit sold.
In the scheme of things, 17,000 patents isn’t that much, but it’s a start. Google can now start commercializing these patents and putting price tags on them, available to whoever wishes to get them. And maybe pricier if you happen to be Microsoft or Apple.
Far out? I don’t think so. It may not happen exactly this way, but I think something like it is inevitable in the future.
I'm not sure if you know, but Motorola is separate from Motorola Mobility. The company split in two earlier this year I believe. Hence why Motorola phones now have red Ms as logos to signify Motorola Mobility. So Google is buying the mobile phone portion of Motorola, not Motorola as a whole.
And Google being in the business of hardware is not a bad thing. They will set the standards for builds and hardware that will (hopefully) unify the other Android manufacturers. They aren't out for blood with this move, they are out to:
1. Create a solid and unchanging platform model to develop their OS against.
2. Protect themselves from Apple.
3. Protect competitors of Motorola from being sued by Motorola.
I don't see this as a vicious take over of the Android hardware arena, but more as an attempt to unify, set standards, and cover their butt. Apple is acting like a-holes, so this HAD to happen. If this was about cornering the market in hardware, they would have taken the open clause out of Android completely.
majorpay said:
And Google being in the business of hardware is not a bad thing. They will set the standards for builds and hardware that will (hopefully) unify the other Android manufacturers. They aren't out for blood with this move, they are out to:
1. Create a solid and unchanging platform model to develop their OS against.
2. Protect themselves from Apple.
3. Protect competitors of Motorola from being sued by Motorola.
I don't see this as a vicious take over of the Android hardware arena, but more as an attempt to unify, set standards, and cover their butt. Apple is acting like a-holes, so this HAD to happen. If this was about cornering the market in hardware, they would have taken the open clause out of Android completely.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. Apple is a software company who outsources their hardware manufacturing; They don't make their own parts. But people assume and treat them like they do. "OMG the iPhone 4 is beautiful, Apple builds them so well too". No, Apple DESIGNED them, but they didn't BUILD them. All the credit is given to Apple. You see what I'm getting at?
Google doesn't have a "face" in the market. The average person doesn't know Android is made by Google (who actually didn't make it themselves to begin with, but that's another story). At least now people will have a brand to associate with Google.
Product F(RED) said:
I agree. Apple is a software company who outsources their hardware manufacturing; They don't make their own parts. But people assume and treat them like they do. "OMG the iPhone 4 is beautiful, Apple builds them so well too". No, Apple DESIGNED them, but they didn't BUILD them. All the credit is given to Apple. You see what I'm getting at?
Google doesn't have a "face" in the market. The average person doesn't know Android is made by Google (who actually didn't make it themselves to begin with, but that's another story). At least now people will have a brand to associate with Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In most cases (getting technical), Apple actually didn't design anything either. They either acquired the I.P. through buying other companies, or in other cases, they license a third party manufacturer to create something that is pretty much the same as everything else, except with proprietary functions and perhaps a unique case design. Look at the state of their modern PCs. They are, for all intents and purposes, nothing more than a PC, BUT they contain some proprietary interfaces to ensure a lack of compatibility.
As far as Google having a name in the hardware arena, Motorola has always been that face, as anyone who has heard of Android has heard of Droid, and by by-proxy Motorola (of course, their fame extends to the Razr as well in the mobile sector).
Closed
As much interesting your post can be, all related topics must be posted in here
Hi,
the Microsoft-Android is an hot topic since a while, MS is getting money from Android devices,
but according to many sites the infringed patents is unknown:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft...veloper-pays-microsoft-patent-royalties/11062
http://www.phonearena.com/news/_id32090
On another site I read that the 4.1 update should remove some patented code from the system:
http://nvonews.com/2012/07/07/galaxy-nexus-ban-update-to-android-4-1-jelly-bean-may-help-avoid-ban/
and I have noticed that in Android 4.1 the X button to clear all the notifications is replaced with three dashes (picture attached)
and I remember Microsoft to register a patent about something like "showing alternate data when pressed an X button":
http://badpatents.blogspot.it/2011/05/pop-up-window.html
Maybe this is the case why Google changed the X button?
Cheers,
Matteo
Its probably a stupid generic patent like the many Apple has, but at least Microsoft charged a bit for royalties instead of trying to ban products outright. It gives the impression that they were trying to protect their patent against possible infringement instead of trying to halt competition which seems to be Apple's agenda.
I really hate this patent war. I agree that you can't infringe someone's registered patent but when they patent every little things, I think it's just to kill other competitors. Just imagine if the gaming industry started a patent war. Activision is gonna sue the $H!T out of everybody for using regenerating health in FPS.
Joel5121 said:
I really hate this patent war. I agree that you can't infringe someone's registered patent but when they patent every little things, I think it's just to kill other competitors. Just imagine if the gaming industry started a patent war. Activision is gonna sue the $H!T out of everybody for using regenerating health in FPS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know, I always look to the car industry as every brand has similar designs yet its a mature industry so there aren't any lawsuits in the news. Patenting the x button (a very basic part of the GUI window system) would be like a car company patenting the car door handle.
http://allthingsd.com/20120720/google-claims-popularity-has-made-some-apple-patents-de-facto-essentials/
Commercially Essential as apposed to technically essential?
I agree to certain extent - the universal search, the data tapping. They are pretty much essential to modern OS's
Others, like slide to unlock, disappearing scroll bars are cosmetic and are in no way essential to the OS but create the differentiation that we need to keep software completion.
The other good point is raised by the first poster on the article: What about Google's search patents? They are so dominant in this market it could be considered that they are commercially essential.
Bump for FRAND licensing!
Lame argument by Google IMHO.
Sent from my Nexus S using xda app-developers app
Second bump?
Definitely agree with Google in this one.
My own opinion takes it a step further. I believe a patent should only be granted if it is highly innovative. A disappearing scroll bar is a good idea, but not something you get a patent for. It's a scroll bar, which has been around for ages, and you thought to hide it when it was not needed as to save space. That's a good idea...but it doesn't deserve a patent. Others should be able to use the same good idea without your permission, and they probably would have thought of it on their own had you not done it. On the other hand, a highly complex formula used for optimizing a 4G connection, and a formula that isn't obvious and/or the sole path to 4G usage...yeah, that's probably patent-able.
Apple's strategy is: Implement the obvious and patent it. That's not innovation, it's laziness, harmful to the industry, and it makes them the tech industry equivalent of slime balls.
When you come down to the specifics of the argument, I'd say google's right. There are de facto standards as well as established standards, and if one is denied anti-competitive enforcement due to detriment of the consumer, the other should be as well. After all, the patent system was never meant to force the consumer into a monopoly; quite the opposite, in fact.
That probably means, yes, google's search patents ought to be FRAND.
Now, where I hate this kind of argument is: maybe not, depending on how broad they are. A very specific search algorithm could be innovated around, just like a very specific (though, with Apple, I wouldn't count on this by a longshot) multi-touch algorithm could be worked around, so as to not necessarily fall under the argument above. But this is still unsatisfactory: just as judge Posner pointed out, this kind of interpretation imposes the cost of working around something, for little or no reason, to the detriment of the consumer. Therefore, the search patent ought to be FRAND, period.
Another reason why this argument isn't so satisfying: it's related, but only minutely, to obviousness. Some patents are so obvious that, yeah, they can be judged to be "commercially essential", but this does not necessarily solve all of them. And, even if this works, the solution would still be to force licensing of obvious patents at FRAND rates, which is still at best a rent, and at worst an injustice.