Every Android Device Now Infringes Apple Patent

Pretty hard to innovate when some douchebag company tries to patent a bunch of menial shit that they don't necessarily even use.
Actually it makes it easier. The patents tell you precisely (in theory) what you cannot do, and give you a baseline to work from.
For example, if the Apple Patent just said, "A touchscreen interface whereby a user's finger is dragged from one side to the other in order to unlock said device."
A later company could overcome that patent by making something that did just that, but added something to it. For example, if you dragged your finger from one side to the other and then OFF the end of the device, or in a curving motion, or a circle, or even a user-defined gesture, it would not infringe.
The patent told the second company where to START. Most companies would love ot be told where to start their innovation.

The point being, what if it was? Ford would have been the only car company. Options and competition drive innovation just as much as being forced to do it a different way. Granted, GM could have just gone with a joystick/button speed control system. but personally I prefer to have all cars the same so I know how to drive all of them.

The apple patent is on "any predefined gesture to unlock a device"... meaning any swipe to unlock (samsungs puzzle piece to unlock, any of androids 5 different unlock styles available in cyanogenmod) is blocked. What other ways are there to do this? Face-to-unlock doesnt work very well and has its own set of flaws. Audio unlock would be a bitch to use in loud environments. A hardware button is bumpable... a swipe gesture of any type is intrinsically logical.
Android's pattern lock screen is what i personally use... Is the gesture "predefined" since it was defined before the screen was locked or does "predefined" mean coming from the factory that way? Sometimes even when other people ARE trying to innovate and do things other ways, patent vagueness and patents on intrinsic ideas get in the way.

When you evaluate a patent, don't focus on one particular point. In order for later tech no infringe, it must infringe on EACH of the patent's points. If it fails one, or has extras added on, no infringement, or at least it is unlikely to beheld infringement.
 
Maybe guys, just maybe, Android is a stolen product and Apple is valid here.

I know right, Crazy.

This. Android would be nothing but a blackberry clone without the iphone and apple. Hard to accept that your most hated enemy (for whatever reason) has shaped the current mobile landscape, but it is true, and these lawsuits are not only valid, but should be encouraged. Some say it stifles innovation. I say what stifles more, fear of being sued, or fear of having your unique product ripped off? Definitely the latter, which is what android and google did. Maybe they should take note of Microsoft, because THAT is how you bring out a unique product.
 
I just wtf'd at this. I am all for IP and stuff, but some things should be left free. If they were patenting the underlying technology, i would understand it, but a patent for the action of swiping is just ridiculous. some things need to be universal. I can just see it now:
Method of storing data in Random Access Memory for faster data retrieval and processing. (RAM)
Method of Tx/Rx Data via Interconnected Networks. (Internet)
Method of returning to previously viewed webpage (Back Button)
 
When you evaluate a patent, don't focus on one particular point. In order for later tech no infringe, it must infringe on EACH of the patent's points. If it fails one, or has extras added on, no infringement, or at least it is unlikely to beheld infringement.

i feel like apple's design patents dont fit int he same category as normal patents apparently. adding subtle changes wasnt enough to keep apple from suing samsung for "looking too much alike"

or maybe the patent laws are just vague, people see the similarities when suing and the differences when defending. according to you, if there are any differences to see, the similarities dont matter. which while i agree with, i dont think always stands up in court.
 
i feel like apple's design patents dont fit int he same category as normal patents apparently. adding subtle changes wasnt enough to keep apple from suing samsung for "looking too much alike"

or maybe the patent laws are just vague, people see the similarities when suing and the differences when defending. according to you, if there are any differences to see, the similarities dont matter. which while i agree with, i dont think always stands up in court.

Well, keep in mind that there is a difference between design and utility patents. The suit in California is a design suit, and any suit around this new utility patent would be pretty different.

Also, note you used the word "subtle." Subtle != innovation, and would be looked at suspiciously in court.
 
This. Android would be nothing but a blackberry clone without the iphone and apple. Hard to accept that your most hated enemy (for whatever reason) has shaped the current mobile landscape, but it is true, and these lawsuits are not only valid, but should be encouraged. Some say it stifles innovation. I say what stifles more, fear of being sued, or fear of having your unique product ripped off? Definitely the latter, which is what android and google did. Maybe they should take note of Microsoft, because THAT is how you bring out a unique product.


Yes so true you know with the iPhone being the first phone built around this concept.

The iPhone design was so groundbreaking that LG created a copy even before it was launched:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_(KE850)
http://www.gsmarena.com/lg_ke850_prada-review-145.php

I'm also so glad that the new ios5 notification system was created to be completely original, yes apple is a company that is so innovative that it will never copy anyone else and shame on all the other guys "stealing" from them.

oh and that unlock prior art posted earlier (Neonode N1m) yes lets disregard that too the Iphone is all original nothing copied.
 
It's already to that point.

Software or business methods shouldn't be patentable at all. It's as simple as that.

If you had built some innovative algorithm for say video compression that was 50 times better than the next best thing you'd be singing a different song.
 
Jobs is gone, apple should gain some moral standards already. :rolleyes:

Then they would be out of business. Get a clue people seriously, it's big business and they are all the same. There is nothing immoral about it..it's just business.
 
If you had built some innovative algorithm for say video compression that was 50 times better than the next best thing you'd be singing a different song.

algorithms are pretty drastically different than intrinsic things (unlocking your phone with a swipe, a back button on a browser) or things that are UI elements (browser tabs instead of multiple browser windows, having a "stack of photos" to display a folder of photos).
As far as I know all of these things are patentable.

A video compression algorithm would be something that takes a lot of work to design and implement. The other things are stuff my mom could come up with ("It would be cute if the photos all looked like an actual stack of photos" "i need a way to have two web sites open but i dont like having a lot of windows, i just need some things to click on to switch between the two web sites") and implementing them in code is relatively easy too. A video compression algorithm is also not itself software. It is implemented in software.
 
another reason why i dont and never will own an apple product, even though they're the most original company ever :rolleyes:
 
Apple should take the Microsoft approach: license your patents and then brag about getting paid for (almost?) every Android phone sold.

But Apple prefers to take the Jobs approach: FU android.. LOL...

It's business and if you don't like the laws lobby to change the laws. Still, this is so damn funny...
 
i patented the way humans take a crap on a toilet.. So i am going to sue you all if you sit on a toilet facing forward legs facing 12 oclock.. It was started in my family since mankind evolved
 
I recall hearing about how steve vowed to destroy android, Maybe these lawsuits are part of how he planned to do it. If you take a look at all of the android handsets over the past few years they are starting to look more and more like iPhones.
 
I love how everyone is hating on Apple when MS right now is collecting $5-$15 per Android device because of licensing/patent issues.

While I'm not OK with this either, on the flip side...Microsoft isn't using these licensing/patent issues to try to hide behind actually competing with another product on the market, so it is a teensy-tiny bit different than Apple's tendency to come up with bullshit patents and the way they lie in court to stop competing products from being sold (i.e., the photoshopping the Galaxy Tab pics).
 
Then they would be out of business. Get a clue people seriously, it's big business and they are all the same. There is nothing immoral about it..it's just business.

So there's no morality or ethics in business? Is that what you're trying to say?

You must be one of those dumbasses who worships at the altar of the "Free Market."
 
slide to unlock.... seriously now, how the hell can this be patented?

IMG_0328.jpg
 
algorithms are pretty drastically different than intrinsic things (unlocking your phone with a swipe, a back button on a browser) or things that are UI elements (browser tabs instead of multiple browser windows, having a "stack of photos" to display a folder of photos).
As far as I know all of these things are patentable.

A video compression algorithm would be something that takes a lot of work to design and implement. The other things are stuff my mom could come up with ("It would be cute if the photos all looked like an actual stack of photos" "i need a way to have two web sites open but i dont like having a lot of windows, i just need some things to click on to switch between the two web sites") and implementing them in code is relatively easy too. A video compression algorithm is also not itself software. It is implemented in software.

This!

This is where the USPO has utterly failed the American people. They keep granting absolute crap, obvious, broad patents. And to big companies. If it was little Timmy applying for that same patent I'm sure his application would hit the wastebasket.
 
Yeah because socialism works so well. Enjoy your breadlines and crime infested community housing waiting for your next handout.

I'll be working to live in a nice clean home enjoying the benefits of my labor.

Yeah mate, because only capitalism and socialism exist. The funny thing about thinking so inside the box is that we are the ones who drew it in the first place, and made it so damn fckn small.

Also, though I don't feel like going back to quote that too, to our fellow [H] user who said that capitalism brought us our computers and other stuff... no it did not. You can't say that because you can't possibly know what kind of progress we might have made under something else, anything else besides capitalism.

You can't really say that technological progress or any progress is based on capitalism or any other system. If you have special powers to see what might have been, then I'm wrong. In any other case...
 
While I'm not OK with this either, on the flip side...Microsoft isn't using these licensing/patent issues to try to hide behind actually competing with another product on the market, so it is a teensy-tiny bit different than Apple's tendency to come up with bullshit patents and the way they lie in court to stop competing products from being sold (i.e., the photoshopping the Galaxy Tab pics).

Umm, actually, that's EXACTLY what Microsoft is doing. They didn't start their crusade against Android until they launched their redesigned Windows Phone 7 and it didn't take off quite as much as initially hoped.
 
Yah, MS pushes their patents but considering they actually invented many of the underlying technologies used in modern operating systems are and not trying to destroy their competition it isn't nearly the same as what Apple is doing. Apple patented completely inane crap like gestures and sues to destroy their competition not enter licensing agreements.

I own hardware from all three vendors, but Apple is really the worst tech company in the US from a business ethics standard.
 
Sliding to unlock a device has been in place since the dawn of recorded human history. It is one of the earliest locking devices. Hell, my fence gate violates this patent.

This "...on a mobile electronic device" making everything that was old out to be new again needs to end.
 
What is the world coming to??? Really? Man, I don't even want a computer anymore or a smartphone. I seriously feel like that sometimes...People take this stuff too seriously.
 
Umm, actually, that's EXACTLY what Microsoft is doing. They didn't start their crusade against Android until they launched their redesigned Windows Phone 7 and it didn't take off quite as much as initially hoped.

Asking for a cut of the pie and trying to keep the pie from being sold are two different things.
 
Yah, MS pushes their patents but considering they actually invented many of the underlying technologies used in modern operating systems are and not trying to destroy their competition it isn't nearly the same as what Apple is doing. Apple patented completely inane crap like gestures and sues to destroy their competition not enter licensing agreements.

I own hardware from all three vendors, but Apple is really the worst tech company in the US from a business ethics standard.


You may want to go read some history on MS and see how moral that company was. Btw all big business is out to kill it's competition in one way or another. MS and Intel were the worst for years. They are all bastards, every one of them.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Microsoft_litigation

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Intel#Competition
 
well I guess if Apple can't become compete, they just want to sabotage their competition.
 
QFT!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no truth in that. I'm actually kind of tired of the straw man arguments. No one is truly against capitalism in this country. People are against getting f%$#ed without lube or compensation. There's a big f--k difference.
 
You may want to go read some history on MS and see how moral that company was. Btw all big business is out to kill it's competition in one way or another. MS and Intel were the worst for years. They are all bastards, every one of them.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Microsoft_litigation

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Intel#Competition

You can't talk logic into some of these guys man. They are just as bright as most of the occupy wall street drones.
 
First it was those dumbass Apple vs Microsoft commercials, taking cheap shots and complete stupidity on Apple's part.

Now this, good lord why wonder everyone here hates on Apple.

I don't own a fucking iphone, imac, or an ipad, and I don't pay for music crap either. And to think people are waiting in line for the next release of icrap. It's hilarious!

I hope Android sticks it to 'em.
 
Taken from the "reasonable plant test"

Source

The applicant for a patent must provide the patent
office with enough information to determine whether what
is claimed is in fact new and not obvious—this assures that
the public does not pay the price of granting a monopoly
for something in which it already has or, in the ordinarycourse of events, would have access to. Patents have always been limited to novel inventions. As an incentive
to add to public knowledge, a patent cannot be granted on
something which would restrict something already
available to the public or which would be obvious to
others of ordinary skill in the relevant field

I think it appears possible to me that they could have a defense in that the slide to unlock feature could be considered so simple and obvious that any reasonable person would expect it to just be.
 
Taken from the "reasonable plant test"

Source

The applicant for a patent must provide the patent
office with enough information to determine whether what
is claimed is in fact new and not obvious—this assures that
the public does not pay the price of granting a monopoly
for something in which it already has or, in the ordinarycourse of events, would have access to. Patents have always been limited to novel inventions. As an incentive
to add to public knowledge, a patent cannot be granted on
something which would restrict something already
available to the public or which would be obvious to
others of ordinary skill in the relevant field

I think it appears possible to me that they could have a defense in that the slide to unlock feature could be considered so simple and obvious that any reasonable person would expect it to just be.
But keep in mind this has to be looked at in terms of pre 2005.
 
You can't talk logic into some of these guys man. They are just as bright as most of the occupy wall street drones.

I definitely didn't say they were completely moral, but linking to a bunch of wikipedia articles covering ancient history and written by Linux fanboys isn't exactly an accurate depiction either. EU lawsuits? Those were complete crap. Can't buy a computer without windows? Um several big companies sold laptops with Linux preinstalled and no one wanted them. I also worked for a company that sold refurb laptops with no OS installed and.. well no one bought them.

Yes all companies pull these crap, but I haven't seen any one link a single MS patent as insane as swipe to unlock. The large Android companies wouldn't be paying them licensing fees if the patents didn't have some actual value.

Some software should be patentable (algorithms, languages, formats) but crap like UI elements or anything that already existed in the physical world should not.

And WTF does the occupy wall street have to do with anything I've said.
 
Back
Top