It's official -- Note2 infringes says Apple

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Ok...

A: Don't be a jerk, you said simply 'he acknowledged that it would have come about whether or not he and his peers helped to build it.' based on what from that exactly was I supposed to divine his letter to FDR. Also, that letter doesn't say anything about the fact that without Einstein the atomic bomb was going to be made anyway. It was saying that there were theories, and probabilities. And it was written 6 years before the first successful test. So, if Jony Ive had written a letter Dan Rather back in '01 that said 'You know, I think that at some point, maybe, we will have all touch based telephonic devices' that would invalidate whether the original iPhone was revolutionary?

B: What exactly are you saying then?

I think we are debating two different things. I don't give a flip about the patents. You and another poster both made the case that the iPhone was not revolutionary. Solely based on that point, I was trying to raise the point that it was revolutionary. Whether or not that entitles them to sue the pants (or try to) anyone one the planet is beside my point, and irrelevant to it.

Would you agree that the Model T was revolutionary?

Revolutionary? Yes. Novel? No. Just like the iPhone, someone would have brought assembly line manufacture to automobiles.

Regarding the letter, did you read it? It clearly says the Nazis will invent atomic weapons whether we do or not.

This thread is about patents. If you're not arguing about patents, that's probably why this discussion doesn't make sense to you.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Do you have any proof they even applied for a patent? Or are you just making things up to confirm your own theories?

Why would anyone besides Apple apply for a patent they knew was not legitimate?

Or are you claiming the Speedee Service Sysyem wasn't a revolution in food service?
 

TheStu

Moderator<br>Mobile Devices & Gadgets
Moderator
Sep 15, 2004
12,089
45
91
Revolutionary? Yes. Novel? No. Just like the iPhone, someone would have brought assembly line manufacture to automobiles.

Regarding the letter, did you read it? It clearly says the Nazis will invent atomic weapons whether we do or not.

This thread is about patents. If you're not arguing about patents, that's probably why this discussion doesn't make sense to you.

What definitions of Novel and Revolutionary are you using such that you allow them to be contradictory in your mind? Novel is new in this context, yes? Revolutionary, in this context is something new that causes a change.

Yes, I read the letter, and there was exactly 1 mention of Germany (none of the Nazis, so I wonder if you read it) and that was to say that Germany was, at the time, no longer selling uranium to other nations, most likely because the son of under-secretary of state was working in the lab that was DUPLICATING (well, repeating was the word he used) the American research. Earlier in the letter it stated that it was very nearly certain that in the near future they would be able to achieve a nuclear reaction, and maybe build bombs based on that.

Where did I say that it didn't make sense? Don't put words in my mouth

Why would anyone besides Apple apply for a patent they knew was not legitimate?

Or are you claiming the Speedee Service Sysyem wasn't a revolution in food service?

That seems to imply that:
A: ONLY Apple would be so devious and nefarious as to do such a thing, everyone else is far too honorable as to not apply for patents on things that YOU deem to be illegitimate.
B: Apple also knew that what they were applying for was illegitimate under any possible perspective, and yet pursued it anyway.

But, it disregard something else... they applied for it, and it was granted. So had it been so illegitimate, why was it granted in the first place?
 

Chiropteran

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2003
9,811
110
106
Do you have any proof they even applied for a patent? Or are you just making things up to confirm your own theories?


Do you have any proof Apple has ever been to the moon? Or are you just making stuff up too?


Oh wait, you never said Apple has been to the moon. Just like TerryMathews never said that McDonald's applied for a patent. Trying to put words in other people mouth to make a point is pretty damn despicable.


But, it disregard something else... they applied for it, and it was granted. So had it been so illegitimate, why was it granted in the first place?

Throw enough garbage against a wall, some of it will stick. Apple applies for hundreds if not thousands if illegitimate patents and some of them are granted.

Not to mention, plenty of completely ridiculous patents have been granted in the past.

(Funny thing though, I google "ridiculous patents" and most of the results are for Apple )
 
Last edited:

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
7,797
5,899
136
Ironically, McDonalds did innovate in the fast food field: the Speedee Service System, or the model of modern fast food. Which was appropriated in part from White Castle. Yet neither was granted a patent because this "innovation" wasn't novel.

The Speedee Service System is just the idea of an assembly line (Made famous by Ford decades early, but probably existed even before that) applied to fast food. They can't get a patent on it because there's nothing to patent. It's a business process, not a physical thing. If they had developed some physical machines that were used as part of that process, they could certainly be patented

Why would anyone besides Apple apply for a patent they knew was not legitimate?

Seriously, every company on the planet has loads of patents that are of the same type of deride Apple for, but you seem to pretend that they don't exist. And this is a practice that started long before Apple was awarded patents for their smartphone technology so it's not exactly a recent trend either.

Just like TerryMathews never said that McDonald's applied for a patent. Trying to put words in other people mouth to make a point is pretty damn despicable.

He did state that neither McDonald's or White Castle was granted a patent because the "innovation" wasn't "novel." That statement would seem to imply that they tried.

And the next thing cheezy asked was if they had even applied for a patent. Essentially trying to determine if such an implication was in fact correct or had any factual evidence.

I couldn't find anything with a quick Google search, but that's probably not a topic that's often discussed on the web. It's probably likely that if anyone were to search for it again in a few weeks, this thread would probably be on the first page of the results.

Throw enough garbage against a wall, some of it will stick. Apple applies for hundreds if not thousands if illegitimate patents and some of them are granted.

It seems like you've already made up your mind about this and won't let facts get in the way of your belief that Apple is somehow intentionally applying for "illegitimate" patents for their own nefarious purposes.

(Funny thing though, I google "ridiculous patents" and most of the results are for Apple )

Probably because people like you rant about Apple's "ridiculous" and "illegitimate" patents because of some irrational dislike for the company. Any large company is going to have loads of what you'd refer to as 'illegitimate' patents, so why you try to single out one company or suggest that they're the only one doing it is beyond me.
 

Chiropteran

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2003
9,811
110
106
Any large company is going to have loads of what you'd refer to as 'illegitimate' patents, so why you try to single out one company or suggest that they're the only one doing it is beyond me.

This thread is about Apple suing Samsung over the Note 2. Why would anyone bring up examples of other companies wrongdoings? The thread is about Apple. We don't choose to single out Apple out of some irrational hatred, we single out Apple because Apple is the topic of this thread.

If you don't want to talk about Apple then go make a new thread and make it about whatever other evil company you want to talk about.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
Or they should settle for using Apple's patents, but call it what you will. Alternatively, they could just continue to design around them as they've done in the past.
See, this is exactly what I and others talk about as the absolute death of technology.

First of all, out of the usual team-sports mentality, you automatically assume everything is Apple's- even overly-broad concepts which is what all of this is about, and that because they're a big giant company that makes shiny toys you like, everyone else should have to 'settle' with them, or design according to their whims, because they own everything.

So should iFONE have just settled with them? No. Apple lost. Now they have to pay iFONE a boatload of money every time they try to sell and iPhone in Mexico. They can't even use the name iPhone in Mexico, as it's Apple that's infringing using that name, not iFONE.

And you also act like they win every case. They don't. A UK court ordered them to display a public apology to Samsung on their website, because Samsung didn't infringe on them, and in fact, it was Apple in the wrong. See how that works? It's not an automatic assumption that Apple gets to win every time they go after someone for making a competing product, nor should everyone else act that way. It's only Apple's cheerleaders that believe that.

Yes, their sales have tanked, haven't they?
You're simply not thinking long term. No, Apple can't go on forever pretending to be the best, rather than actually BEING the best. They can't just sue everyone else to keep them from surpassing them, as opposed to actually making products that keep up with the competition's products. That's largely what they're attempting to do lately- sue to hold everybody back, rather than actually innovate to keep up with and even stay ahead of the game.

Just look how delusional the Apple-fan 'argument' is about this whole subject. "Why can't Apple just sit on its ass for 10 years and no one else can make a smartphone?" is the crux of their non-argument, as if that would be good for the consumer. It wouldn't be good for anyone, the consumer or the entire tech industry.

Competing products actually push Apple to stay on top of the game too, and so are good for Apple's fans as well. Sure, they'd be MORE than happy to still be selling you a 2007-era iPhone (and Macs and everything else too) and keeping everyone else from making anything that's better. Only a dyed in the wool fanboi nutcase would think that's a good thing, yet essentially its what I see people wishing for just to root for 'the team'. It's crazy.
 

cheezy321

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2003
6,218
2
0
I don't consider your point valid because it doesn't conform to my strictly narrowed viewpoint. LALALALALA. Amirite?

FYI: you are the one trying to argue that apple is the only company out there that tries to patent things that 'aren't legitimate'.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
What definitions of Novel and Revolutionary are you using such that you allow them to be contradictory in your mind? Novel is new in this context, yes? Revolutionary, in this context is something new that causes a change.

Yes, I read the letter, and there was exactly 1 mention of Germany (none of the Nazis, so I wonder if you read it) and that was to say that Germany was, at the time, no longer selling uranium to other nations, most likely because the son of under-secretary of state was working in the lab that was DUPLICATING (well, repeating was the word he used) the American research. Earlier in the letter it stated that it was very nearly certain that in the near future they would be able to achieve a nuclear reaction, and maybe build bombs based on that.

Where did I say that it didn't make sense? Don't put words in my mouth



That seems to imply that:
A: ONLY Apple would be so devious and nefarious as to do such a thing, everyone else is far too honorable as to not apply for patents on things that YOU deem to be illegitimate.
B: Apple also knew that what they were applying for was illegitimate under any possible perspective, and yet pursued it anyway.

But, it disregard something else... they applied for it, and it was granted. So had it been so illegitimate, why was it granted in the first place?

Novel is defined in Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co v Supermarket Equipment Corp. A revolutionary idea can be a new application of an existing idea. A novel idea, as defined by the above mentioned case, cannot.
 

openwheel

Platinum Member
Apr 30, 2012
2,044
17
81
...................................................................
Would you agree that the Model T was revolutionary?

Absolutely, the same way the iPhone is revolutionary being the first cellphone.....oh wait...

Not only was the iPhone not the first cellphone, it wasn't the first smartphone. It wasn't the first smartphone with touch screen and icons that open apps. It was a fantastic evolutionary product and no less. The first one that was actually smooth (back in 2007/2008). I personally think the iPhone 3G really hit the spot of the consumers.

Sorry, back to patents. I agree with Zaap. Apple is stifling innovation and competition with wads of cash which is a direct result of their incredible profit margin. TerryMatthews made many great points too. The patent system really needs to be "revolutionalized" so the most powerful giants can't abuse the system.
 
Last edited:

openwheel

Platinum Member
Apr 30, 2012
2,044
17
81
oh I just want to add something:

iPhone is the first smartphone with bounce back feature though, and it's also the first rectangular phone with rounded corners......oh wait...
 

TheStu

Moderator<br>Mobile Devices & Gadgets
Moderator
Sep 15, 2004
12,089
45
91
Novel is defined in Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co v Supermarket Equipment Corp. A revolutionary idea can be a new application of an existing idea. A novel idea, as defined by the above mentioned case, cannot.

You're a lawyer or a politician (or work in politics), aren't you? The way you answer questions is... interesting.

Absolutely, the same way the iPhone would be revolutionary if the iPhone was the very first cellphone.....oh wait...

Not only was the iPhone not the first cellphone, it wasn't the first smartphone. It wasn't the first smartphone with touch screen and icons that open apps. It was a fantastic evolutionary product and no less. The first one that was actually smooth (back in 2007/2008). I personally think the iPhone 3G really hit the spot of the consumers.

Sorry, back to patents. I agree with Zaap. Apple is stifling innovation and competition with wads of cash which is a direct result of their incredible profit margin.

The Model T wasn't the first engine on wheels with seats, but it changed the game. Look at the cell phone market at it exists today. Look at what it was in 2005. Now, point to the device that isn't the iPhone that caused that change. My case is that when it shifts an industry the way that it did, that is revolutionary.

Every version after that, that is evolution, and that's fine (though the expression 'Ugh, evolution not revolution, ugh' gets incredibly old and over-used). Are you really going to argue that only the absolute reduction of any given thing is the revolutionary item and everything else is evolutionary? So, what... the first computer wasn't revolutionary, the typewriter was?

Zaap's point seems to be that Apple is actually stifling its own innovation since he keeps saying that Apple would rather sue than counter Samsung's innovations (though he never specifies the innovations by the way).
 

openwheel

Platinum Member
Apr 30, 2012
2,044
17
81
You're a lawyer or a politician (or work in politics), aren't you? The way you answer questions is... interesting.



The Model T wasn't the first engine on wheels with seats, but it changed the game. Look at the cell phone market at it exists today. Look at what it was in 2005. Now, point to the device that isn't the iPhone that caused that change. My case is that when it shifts an industry the way that it did, that is revolutionary. Free speech and all :)

Every version after that, that is evolution, and that's fine (though the expression 'Ugh, evolution not revolution, ugh' gets incredibly old and over-used). Are you really going to argue that only the absolute reduction of any given thing is the revolutionary item and everything else is evolutionary? So, what... the first computer wasn't revolutionary, the typewriter was?

Zaap's point seems to be that Apple is actually stifling its own innovation since he keeps saying that Apple would rather sue than counter Samsung's innovations (though he never specifies the innovations by the way).

sorry, "first engine on wheels with seats" does not quality as the "first car". Your train must stay on rails.

The iPhone was not the first phone, not the first cellphone, and not the first cellphone with icons that open apps. However, emotionally, it's revolutionary in a sense that it created a cult like following. Of course, you can call anything revolutionary. Free speech and all since you think I am a politician :)

There were plenty of smart phones before the iPhone. The entire industry was shifting mobile. It was inevitable a usable smartphone would be brought to the market. The iPhone was the first one.
 
Last edited:

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
You're a lawyer or a politician (or work in politics), aren't you? The way you answer questions is... interesting.



The Model T wasn't the first engine on wheels with seats, but it changed the game. Look at the cell phone market at it exists today. Look at what it was in 2005. Now, point to the device that isn't the iPhone that caused that change. My case is that when it shifts an industry the way that it did, that is revolutionary.

Every version after that, that is evolution, and that's fine (though the expression 'Ugh, evolution not revolution, ugh' gets incredibly old and over-used). Are you really going to argue that only the absolute reduction of any given thing is the revolutionary item and everything else is evolutionary? So, what... the first computer wasn't revolutionary, the typewriter was?

Zaap's point seems to be that Apple is actually stifling its own innovation since he keeps saying that Apple would rather sue than counter Samsung's innovations (though he never specifies the innovations by the way).

We're debating law. I thought how the Supreme Court defined a specific term was more relevant than how you and I do.
 

cheezy321

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2003
6,218
2
0
Basically the only argument you guys are making is that nothing is revolutionary and nothing is deserving of a patent.

I would encourage you to actually spell out something you consider revolutionary or worthy of a patent.

Its very easy to be a hater. The internet has proven that time and time again. I would really enjoy seeing you guys actually try to defend something you consider to be revolutionary or worthy of a patent.
 

TheStu

Moderator<br>Mobile Devices & Gadgets
Moderator
Sep 15, 2004
12,089
45
91
We're debating law. I thought how the Supreme Court defined a specific term was more relevant than how you and I do.

I'm not real well versed in wading through legal documents it seems. Can you point out where they defined 'novel'? I see that the lower court and the appeals court said that the implementation was novel, and I see that the Supreme Court disagreed with that, but I seem to be missing where they offer a new (dare I say, novel) definition for the word.

Also, I was asking YOUR opinion since I am debating with you. Under YOUR definitions of revolutionary and novel; does the original iPhone qualify?
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
I'm not real well versed in wading through legal documents it seems. Can you point out where they defined 'novel'? I see that the lower court and the appeals court said that the implementation was novel, and I see that the Supreme Court disagreed with that, but I seem to be missing where they offer a new (dare I say, novel) definition for the word.

Also, I was asking YOUR opinion since I am debating with you. Under YOUR definitions of revolutionary and novel; does the original iPhone qualify?

Revolutionary:yes. Novel:no. I listed earlier in the thread prior art for practically all of the iPhones features.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Basically the only argument you guys are making is that nothing is revolutionary and nothing is deserving of a patent.

I would encourage you to actually spell out something you consider revolutionary or worthy of a patent.

Its very easy to be a hater. The internet has proven that time and time again. I would really enjoy seeing you guys actually try to defend something you consider to be revolutionary or worthy of a patent.

The Newton. UNIX. The teletype. Liquid crystal displays. Capacitative touch screens. Ad nauseum.
 

cheezy321

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2003
6,218
2
0
The Newton. UNIX. The teletype. Liquid crystal displays. Capacitative touch screens. Ad nauseum.

Lets discuss the Newton then.

Touch screen - http://oldcomputers.net/linus.html
Stylus - http://oldcomputers.net/linus.html
Contact list - existed on pen and paper for decades
Calendar - Existed for centuries
PCMCIA Expansion cards - Came out in 1991

You can do the 'prior art' thing with every item in the world. I agree that the newton was revolutionary and patentable, but that doesn't preclude the fact that tons of prior art existed before it. The fact that it was all bundled together in one machine is what made it unique and patentable.
 

openwheel

Platinum Member
Apr 30, 2012
2,044
17
81
I chuckled at "existed on pen and paper for decades" and "existed for centuries" from the above.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Lets discuss the Newton then.

Touch screen - http://oldcomputers.net/linus.html
Stylus - http://oldcomputers.net/linus.html
Contact list - existed on pen and paper for decades
Calendar - Existed for centuries
PCMCIA Expansion cards - Came out in 1991

You can do the 'prior art' thing with every item in the world. I agree that the newton was revolutionary and patentable, but that doesn't preclude the fact that tons of prior art existed before it. The fact that it was all bundled together in one machine is what made it unique and patentable.

I was thinking more of Rosetta, the way the machine sorted and organized data, and the UI navigation.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
7,797
5,899
136
See, this is exactly what I and others talk about as the absolute death of technology.

First of all, out of the usual team-sports mentality, you automatically assume everything is Apple's- even overly-broad concepts which is what all of this is about, and that because they're a big giant company that makes shiny toys you like, everyone else should have to 'settle' with them, or design according to their whims, because they own everything.

No, I assume that Apple owns what they've patented though, which is the law. And they don't own everything, merely implementations of certain ideas which can be implemented in other ways. If a company doesn't want to do that, they should probably pay the owner of the patent or try to have it invalidated or argue in court that their implementation does not infringe on the patent.

So should iFONE have just settled with them? No. Apple lost. Now they have to pay iFONE a boatload of money every time they try to sell and iPhone in Mexico. They can't even use the name iPhone in Mexico, as it's Apple that's infringing using that name, not iFONE.

Why do you keep saying that? It's not true. Apparently a hasty early translation of the original news seemed to suggest that, but it's not true. Please read this article which has been linked to at least a few times now in this thread.

And really, there was no settlement option. Apple was attempting to have the mark invalidated due to it not actively being used. Apparently Apple wanted to do this because they had applied for another (They already have 2 in Mexico) trademark for iPhone in the same class that the iFONE trademark existed in. They probably wouldn't be able to get their trademark application approved as long as the other existed.

I also have no clue whether or not their claim that the trademark was not being actively used is true or not. I don't live in Mexico, so I have no idea if it's been used there recently. Furthermore, I don't know what the laws for that country are, so even if it wasn't in use, it would still be possible for the company that owned it to keep it just by defending it.

And you also act like they win every case. They don't.

No I don't. I've said on multiple occasions that they've probably won about half, a point made to counter the absurd notions that Apple is somehow "abusing" the legal system or bringing a large number of fraudulent cases to court.

Also, as I've said before, until all of the appeal options are exhausted on any case, any loss or victory is only temporary. It could be several more years before any of these matters are considered truly resolved. By then, things will have swung enough in the favor of one side that a settlement is likely.

They can't just sue everyone else to keep them from surpassing them, as opposed to actually making products that keep up with the competition's products.

They conceivably could as long as their competitors infringe on their products. It's not as though these lawsuits came out of nowhere.

That's largely what they're attempting to do lately- sue to hold everybody back, rather than actually innovate to keep up with and even stay ahead of the game.

If they have a valid patent on some technology, why should their competition get to use it for free?

Just look how delusional the Apple-fan 'argument' is about this whole subject. "Why can't Apple just sit on its ass for 10 years and no one else can make a smartphone?" is the crux of their non-argument, as if that would be good for the consumer. It wouldn't be good for anyone, the consumer or the entire tech industry.

I don't think anyone has said that, even the Apple fans. Also, I'm quite sure that Apple doesn't hold patents that would prevent anyone else from making a smart phone.