• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Google Fights Back

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
poofyhairguy said:
Bad analogy.

Dysons might be amazing, but you can still clean a carpet without one. You might just have to pay more, or accept technology that is not as efficient.

If Apple is allowed to not license its patents, you might not be able to make a touchscreen smartphone unless you are them.

In a post-PC world where more and more people connect with each other with smartphones rather than computers, and a lot of the innovation is in the smartphone market for both businesses and consumers, Apple keeping their patents can cripple mobile technology and therefore developed society. Apple's patents can put developed countries at a disadvantage for innovation in the sector to undeveloped nations where Apple's patents don't apply. It is in developed society's interest to intervene.

A better analogy is when the first car company invented an air-bag, and that was licensed out to other car makers to make all cars safer. If that first company didn't want to license the air-bag and instead filed an injunction against all car makers that took the idea to try to have safer vehicles I would fully support a judge stepping in and forcing the inventing company to share for the good of us all.

Apple is the most profitable company in the mobile sector, they have huge marketshare and a solid brand name (iPhone) in that market. As far as I am concerned, they already got the benefit the system intended they got from their patents.
They don't have the right to stagnate the smartphone market just because all of that isn't enough for them or because Jobs was butthurt. At some point the law goes out the window and what is practical is what needs to happen (aka something like jury nullification but with judges).
Click to expand...

The importance of building a smartphone has the same level of importance as a life saving mechanism? I can't agree that your analogy is much better.

I highlighted the part that I do agree with. The problem isn't patents, it's not about the right to license patents. The problem is in the duration of the patents. If Apple showed the world how a touchscreen based smartphone is the way to go, they should have have the sole right to sell this for however many years.
 
TuxDave said:
The importance of building a smartphone has the same level of importance as a life saving mechanism? I can't agree that your analogy is much better.

I highlighted the part that I do agree with. The problem isn't patents, it's not about the right to license patents. The problem is in the duration of the patents. If Apple showed the world how a touchscreen based smartphone is the way to go, they should have have the sole right to sell this for however many years.
Click to expand...

Apple didn't invent capacitive touch screen. It didn't invent smartphones. It was quick to transition to a new technology, that is not the same as being the inventor of that technology, and does not give you exclusive rights.
 
alent1234 said:
samsung can still make touch screen phones. touch has been researched since the 80's. Apple just has patents on a few algorithms for capacitive touch screen devices.

you can still use other screen types. you can change the screen chemical formula. you can code your own algorithms into your OS
Click to expand...

If you are right and Android is found to not infringe on Apple's patents due to different algorithms or whatever then obviously the patents don't matter enough to force licensing.

But if it as Apple seems to believe and that Android can't be anything like what it is today without infringing on patents Apple refuses to create licensing terms for, then a judge needs to step in and force licensing.
 
TuxDave said:
I highlighted the part that I do agree with. The problem isn't patents, it's not about the right to license patents. The problem is in the duration of the patents. If Apple showed the world how a touchscreen based smartphone is the way to go, they should have have the sole right to sell this for however many years.
Click to expand...

In my opinion the system is fundamentally broken. There is no way to fix it in developed nations because lobbyist groups from certain industries push what benefits their industry over what benefits society.

Given that reality, I am 100% in favor of "activist judges" that take the law into their hands.

In this case if the law as written doesn't allow for Android to exist, then a judge needs to step in and force its existence with Apple getting some sort of compensation for the innovation.

Apple being the only capacitive touchscreen smartphone maker doesn't help consumers, and the laws are meant to protect consumers.

Other companies realize the political implications of playing hardball like Apple has done and have worked out licensing terms rather than deal with judges. The reality is that you only get to do what is politically expedient to do, and no trained politician will tell you banning the most popular smartphone platform like Apple wants is a politically viable option.

Apple needs to learn that it is not above the wants and desires of the societies that provide it with stable markets and consumers. The law only works when people are willing to follow it and judges are willing to enforce it.
 
I am hoping Apple wins one of these trials and tries to ban Android. Ultimately, the antitrust authorities are going to have to put an end to this madness.
 
senseamp said:
Apple didn't invent capacitive touch screen. It didn't invent smartphones. It was quick to transition to a new technology, that is not the same as being the inventor of that technology, and does not give you exclusive rights.
Click to expand...

Let me know if you're referring to this patent:

http://gizmodo.com/5814430/apple-now-owns-the-patent-on-your-smartphones-touchscreen

Because if you're referring to the above, they corrected their sensationalist headline article with additional clarification.
 
senseamp said:
In general. Apple was not the first to slide to unlock. They got a patent for it, but there is prior art to invalidate it.
Click to expand...

Oh, "In General". Well, ok, "in general" there are lots of patents out there owned by many companies that many other companies are trying to invalidate. THAT problem isn't an Apple specific one.
 
senseamp said:
I am hoping Apple wins one of these trials and tries to ban Android. Ultimately, the antitrust authorities are going to have to put an end to this madness.
Click to expand...

It won't get banned. Android is worth too much to too many different parties. Court cases where Apple has won haven't amounted to a ban as the companies involved would either work around or remove the things found to be infringing. If Android can't have a slide-to-unlock lock screen, I doubt it will be the end of the world.
 
Mopetar said:
It won't get banned. Android is worth too much to too many different parties. Court cases where Apple has won haven't amounted to a ban as the companies involved would either work around or remove the things found to be infringing. If Android can't have a slide-to-unlock lock screen, I doubt it will be the end of the world.
Click to expand...

Apple is trying to go after Android on more fundamental smartphone features. Real time APIs and stuff like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top