It's official -- Note2 infringes says Apple

[Mopetar]

Settling requires agreement from both parties. Apple wanted to settle, Samsung didn't agree to the terms. I'm not sure why you think this makes Apple look any better, or why you think it is even important enough to bring up.

What does it have to do with making anyone looking better? I'm merely pointing out the suggesting that because they've settled they're a patent troll (which is an absurd statement in and of itself; at best, you could really just say they're patent bullies) doesn't make much sense when there are other companies (Samsung and Motorola) they haven't settled with.

And yes it does take agreement from both parties, but as you've claimed, patent trolls are unlikely to want to go to court. Apple apparently hasn't had a problem going to court, and really, they're probably only getting favorable settlement terms at this point because they've won enough cases to get the kind of leverage that they want, whereas the other parties haven't.

Samsung should 'settle' with Apple for the sin of producing more innovative phones than them like the Note 2 and SGS3.

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.

The biggest irony in all of this, is that I see the end game as actually being more damaging to Apple than to everyone else. . .

Yes, their sales have tanked, haven't they?

. . . and worst of all, it's all to gloss over and distract from the fact that Apple is failing to keep up innovation.

Such as what exactly? No really, I keep seeing people say this, but any feature that they care to list is just as banal as anything Apple has done in the last few years. Ever since the original iPhone was released, nothing has been revolutionary, or even terribly innovative. It's merely been an evolution and improvement of existing features or the addition of features that have existed outside of a mobile.

The only thing remotely innovative or revolutionary that has been seen in the space since then are Google Glasses, but they're still in development and no one knows when they'll have a finished product.

Otherwise, nothing ground-breaking has happened. The software has just matured, the screens are more dense and have better colors, the cameras have better quality, and the chips are more powerful. Otherwise, it's still the exact same idea of using a large display that's a touch surface and not having a physical keyboard.

 

[openwheel]

people keep saying the original iPhone was "revolutionary", and everything that followed was "evolutionary".

That's weird because I thought iPhone was evolutionary. Touch screen with icons lined up that open applications. Sounds evolutionary to me.

 

[Zink]

Touch screen with icons lined up that open applications. Sounds evolutionary to me.

Is an iPhone only rows of icons though? The "revolution" that was the iPhone is actually a whole package including hardware, software and ecosystem. There is also no hard line between evolution and revolution. It might be more correct to say that the jump from WinMo or Symbian phones to the iPhone was one of the largest one year change in the phone space that has happened this decade. That is obviously partially opinion but if that is the assumption then I think it is reasonable to call the iPhone "revolutionary". Every new technology is going to be evolutionary in some respects because it builds on past tech.

 

[MrX8503]

No more so than your speculation that there's nothing like what I'm suggesting.

I'm glad that we can agree that you're just speculating.

 

[Oyeve]

people keep saying the original iPhone was "revolutionary", and everything that followed was "evolutionary".

That's weird because I thought iPhone was evolutionary. Touch screen with icons lined up that open applications. Sounds evolutionary to me.

Please, my Sony Ericsson phone did that years before the first iPhone.

 

[openwheel]

Is an iPhone only rows of icons though? The "revolution" that was the iPhone is actually a whole package including hardware, software and ecosystem. There is also no hard line between evolution and revolution. It might be more correct to say that the jump from WinMo or Symbian phones to the iPhone was one of the largest one year change in the phone space that has happened this decade. That is obviously partially opinion but if that is the assumption then I think it is reasonable to call the iPhone "revolutionary". Every new technology is going to be evolutionary in some respects because it builds on past tech.

That is even more confusing. So being a "whole package" makes the iPhone "revolutionary"? By having hardware, software and "ecosystem".

What is an "eco-system"? Symbian and WinMo didn't have ecosystems? Or is an "app store" a pre-requisite for an ecosystem? Do you have to lock down your customers to all your products and services quality as having an ecosystem? Therefore being revolutionary?

 

[cheezy321]

That is even more confusing. So being a "whole package" makes the iPhone "revolutionary"? By having hardware, software and "ecosystem".

What is an "eco-system"? Symbian and WinMo didn't have ecosystems? Or is an "app store" a pre-requisite for an ecosystem? Do you have to lock down your customers to all your products and services quality as having an ecosystem? Therefore being revolutionary?

Yes, the whole package made the iPhone revolutionary. There was no product before the iPhone that packaged up everything you see in a modern day smartphone...and made it so easy to use. You can cherry pick examples all day 'this phone had apps!' and 'this phone had swipe to unlock!' but there was no single phone that did everything the iPhone did before it.

Symbian and WinMo both had ecosystems the same way the United States and Liberia both have money.

 

[TerryMathews]

Yes, the whole package made the iPhone revolutionary. There was no product before the iPhone that packaged up everything you see in a modern day smartphone...and made it so easy to use. You can cherry pick examples all day 'this phone had apps!' and 'this phone had swipe to unlock!' but there was no single phone that did everything the iPhone did before it.

Symbian and WinMo both had ecosystems the same way the United States and Liberia both have money.

I'm glad we agree. A collection of innovations is not an innovation.

 

[Tom]

I'm glad we agree. A collection of innovations is not an innovation.

probably why the iphone never caught on.

 

[TerryMathews]

probably why the iphone never caught on.

Innovation =! Popularity. The Dyson is the most innovative vacuum. Is it the most popular? The DeLorean was an innovative car. A success? Hardly.

An innovation is generally accepted to be novel. What is novel about combining independently successful innovations? Good business sense? Of course. Innovative? Hardly.

 

[Zink]

You just showed innovation does not guarantee popularity but that doesn't rule out popularity due to innovation. It could be all marketing and brainwashing but there is also the possibility that the iPhone came along with all the things that made it did different (better) at the time and therefore became popular. Doing something different from everyone else and being successful is a pretty good indicator of innovation.

 

[openwheel]

You just showed innovation does not guarantee popularity but that doesn't rule out popularity due to innovation. It could be all marketing and brainwashing but there is also the possibility that the iPhone came along with all the things that made it did different (better) at the time and therefore became popular. Doing something different from everyone else and being successful is a pretty good indicator of innovation.

so we all agree success does not equal innovation. Yay!

imho, iPhone was a great device fueled with insane marketing which created a cult like following. Actually it started with the iPod days, but the iPhone really locked people in.

A great, evolutionary, successful device in terms of capital for the Apple Corporation.

 

[mikegg]

so we all agree success does not equal innovation. Yay!

imho, iPhone was a great device fueled with insane marketing which created a cult like following. Actually it started with the iPod days, but the iPhone really locked people in.

A great, evolutionary, successful device in terms of capital for the Apple Corporation.

Please stop trolling. Without the iPhone, we'd still be using Blackberry's craptastic phones.

 

[TerryMathews]

Please stop trolling. Without the iPhone, we'd still be using Blackberry's craptastic phones.

Or Windows Mobile. Or PalmOS. Or Symbian. Or MeeGo.

There was a world before iOS. And it would have continued to develop without Saint Jobs.

 

[QueBert]

Or Windows Mobile. Or PalmOS. Or Symbian. Or MeeGo.

There was a world before iOS. And it would have continued to develop without Saint Jobs.

The mobile OS world before iOS sucked, I had a few WM6 devices, a Blackberry, whatever Sony used & a Nokia Symbian device. They were all boring and seriously lacking when it came to apps. It was going to take more than natural progression for them to get to a wow state. The 1st version of WM to 6.5 saw pretty much little to nothing new added. I paid $30 for a WM app to give me full screen caller ID pics. iOS is the reason there are free and 99 cent apps out there. I can't count how much I spent on WM apps, I do remember most were expensive as shit, and all sucked in quality.

 

[openwheel]

The mobile OS world before iOS sucked, I had a few WM6 devices, a Blackberry, whatever Sony used & a Nokia Symbian device. They were all boring and seriously lacking when it came to apps. It was going to take more than natural progression for them to get to a wow state. The 1st version of WM to 6.5 saw pretty much little to nothing new added. I paid $30 for a WM app to give me full screen caller ID pics. iOS is the reason there are free and 99 cent apps out there. I can't count how much I spent on WM apps, I do remember most were expensive as shit, and all sucked in quality.

well if you paid that much for such an app(and more), then I don't know what else to tell ya. Sounds a bit dramatic. The iPhone was the first usable smartphone imho, but not "revolutionary".

The market demanded smoother user interface and Apple delivered first. It's simply the natural progression of technology.

 

[TerryMathews]

well if you paid that much for such an app(and more), then I don't know what else to tell ya. Sounds a bit dramatic. The iPhone was the first usable smartphone imho, but not "revolutionary".

The market demanded smoother user interface and Apple delivered first. It's simply the natural progression of technology.

And really it was driven more by the availability of accurate capacitative touch in appropriate sizes more than anything else. I believe absent Apple the touch UI revolution would have happened anyway. There are too many examples of similar art prior to the iPhone.

FWIW I liked my Palm Treo 750.

 

[TheStu]

well if you paid that much for such an app(and more), then I don't know what else to tell ya. Sounds a bit dramatic. The iPhone was the first usable smartphone imho, but not "revolutionary".

The market demanded smoother user interface and Apple delivered first. It's simply the natural progression of technology.

And really it was driven more by the availability of accurate capacitative touch in appropriate sizes more than anything else. I believe absent Apple the touch UI revolution would have happened anyway. There are too many examples of similar art prior to the iPhone.

FWIW I liked my Palm Treo 750.

The market was pushing for RAZRs and Blackberries before the iPhone came out.

Then, the iPhone came out, and now we have a market dominated by large screened all-touch devices. How exactly is the iPhone NOT revolutionary for being that inflection point?

Look at it another way, you have surely heard the expression 'If I asked people what they wanted, they would have asked for a faster horse' (I may have butchered it a little bit) by Henry Ford. Before the Model T came out, there were other automobiles out there, but they were basically just horseless carriages. And I don't mean that in a hokey way of saying something (like saying that The Avengers is the latest Marvel moving picture), I mean that they were carriages that instead of horses, had engines. The Model T was a car.

You know what happened after the Model T came out? Horseless carriages dropped off the map, and they were replaced by automobiles, cars. Would you consider the Model T revolutionary? There were vehicles that had 4 wheels, and had engines, and seats and a horn and all that jazz. But Ford put together the first successful CAR as we know it.

Apple put together the first successful modern smartphone. They also put together the first successful MP3 player (and the support system), and the completely changed the music industry, and how we buy and consume music.

The iPhone has changed how the mass market interacts with their devices, and what they expect their phones to do. They have driven the industry forward on many, many fronts. And to remark that it was not initially a revolution either means that you either have too high a bar for a revolution, or are blinded by bias.

 

[TerryMathews]

The market was pushing for RAZRs and Blackberries before the iPhone came out. Again, that was the best UI model available as resistive touch screens are garbage. It's not like accurate capacitative touchscreens were just sitting around waiting for Apple to invent the iPhone.

Then, the iPhone came out, and now we have a market dominated by large screened all-touch devices. How exactly is the iPhone NOT revolutionary for being that inflection point?

Look at it another way, you have surely heard the expression 'If I asked people what they wanted, they would have asked for a faster horse' (I may have butchered it a little bit) by Henry Ford. Before the Model T came out, there were other automobiles out there, but they were basically just horseless carriages. And I don't mean that in a hokey way of saying something (like saying that The Avengers is the latest Marvel moving picture), I mean that they were carriages that instead of horses, had engines. The Model T was a car.

You know what happened after the Model T came out? Horseless carriages dropped off the map, and they were replaced by automobiles, cars. Would you consider the Model T revolutionary? There were vehicles that had 4 wheels, and had engines, and seats and a horn and all that jazz. But Ford put together the first successful CAR as we know it. Did Ford get a patent to manufacture the Model T at the expense of other manufacturers? Of course not. Because the only novel-ish idea was assembly line manufacture which was in use just not on items of that scale. Does one color availability count as an innovation?

Apple put together the first successful modern smartphone. They also put together the first successful MP3 player (and the support system), and the completely changed the music industry, and how we buy and consume music.

The iPhone has changed how the mass market interacts with their devices, and what they expect their phones to do. They have driven the industry forward on many, many fronts. And to remark that it was not initially a revolution either means that you either have too high a bar for a revolution, or are blinded by bias.

The iPhone was one of a multitude of inflection points that drove common people towards smart phones. I would argue that higher resolution phone cameras and Facebook equally contributed to the revolution. And, again, a revolution in touch screen design. The availability of large single chip flash storage.

Step back and think for a minute. You're seriously arguing that if Apple didn't invent the iPhone we would still be using Motorola RAZRs.

Einstein didn't feel about that atomic bomb that way. I would say that was far more innovative than the iPhone and he acknowledged that it would have come about whether or not he and his peers helped to build it.

 

[TheStu]

The iPhone was one of a multitude of inflection points that drove common people towards smart phones. I would argue that higher resolution phone cameras and Facebook equally contributed to the revolution. And, again, a revolution in touch screen design. The availability of large single chip flash storage.

Step back and think for a minute. You're seriously arguing that if Apple didn't invent the iPhone we would still be using Motorola RAZRs.

Einstein didn't feel about that atomic bomb that way. I would say that was far more innovative than the iPhone and he acknowledged that it would have come about whether or not he and his peers helped to build it.

And you are arguing that, without a shadow of a doubt, we wouldn't still be using RAZRs and blackberries. Think about what Android was before the iPhone. It was a blackberry clone. Think of all the RAZR clones that were out there at the time.

You're also arguing that just because you think that 'well, eventually SOMEONE would have figured it out, so the first guy to do right isn't worth anything' then the first success isn't revolutionary. So maybe you should step back and think as well. I never said that we would still be using RAZRs/blackberries, I said that at the time the iPhone came out, that was what people were buying.

Look at it this way. The iPhone came out, and for a while, there was nothing else like it, because the other manufacturers were waiting to see if it was going to work and sell before they rushed in with their clones. It was over a year from the time that the iPhone 1 came out and the HTC G1 came out, 2 years until the Motorola Droid came out, which was the first successful Android device. So, look at that, and still try and tell me that Apple's device wasn't revolutionary.

Because in order for it not to be, every other manufacturer had to have been sitting on the tech and the device for YEARS, and just weren't selling it because... reasons.

You argue that it was simply a confluence of available tech, except it wasn't just that, it was cowardice on the part of the other manufacturers. It took 2 years to get a successful iPhone contender out, so it took them at least a year to decide that it was actually a threat and worth pursuing. What impetus did they have to change the status quo before that? They (other OEMs and the carriers) were happily pushing out cheap plastic flip phones at outrageous margins for years and years and people were buying them, why stop doing that to try something new?

Something that directly disproves your point about Einstein is the lack of prevalence of nuclear weapons. The US figured it out, and the USSR figured it out, and that is about it, but there are still only a dozen or less nuclear nations out there, and the rest of them got their designs, tech, and starters from the US or Russia/USSR. The a-bomb was not inevitable, it wasn't something that will just shake out over time given sufficient background tech. (I read an article or book on this a few years ago, I just can't remember the name at all, but you didn't cite your source on the Einstein quote either...)

 

[TerryMathews]

And you are arguing that, without a shadow of a doubt, we wouldn't still be using RAZRs and blackberries. Think about what Android was before the iPhone. It was a blackberry clone. Think of all the RAZR clones that were out there at the time.

You're also arguing that just because you think that 'well, eventually SOMEONE would have figured it out, so the first guy to do right isn't worth anything' then the first success isn't revolutionary. So maybe you should step back and think as well. I never said that we would still be using RAZRs/blackberries, I said that at the time the iPhone came out, that was what people were buying.

Look at it this way. The iPhone came out, and for a while, there was nothing else like it, because the other manufacturers were waiting to see if it was going to work and sell before they rushed in with their clones. It was over a year from the time that the iPhone 1 came out and the HTC G1 came out, 2 years until the Motorola Droid came out, which was the first successful Android device. So, look at that, and still try and tell me that Apple's device wasn't revolutionary.

Because in order for it not to be, every other manufacturer had to have been sitting on the tech and the device for YEARS, and just weren't selling it because... reasons.

You argue that it was simply a confluence of available tech, except it wasn't just that, it was cowardice on the part of the other manufacturers. It took 2 years to get a successful iPhone contender out, so it took them at least a year to decide that it was actually a threat and worth pursuing. What impetus did they have to change the status quo before that? They (other OEMs and the carriers) were happily pushing out cheap plastic flip phones at outrageous margins for years and years and people were buying them, why stop doing that to try something new?

Something that directly disproves your point about Einstein is the lack of prevalence of nuclear weapons. The US figured it out, and the USSR figured it out, and that is about it, but there are still only a dozen or less nuclear nations out there, and the rest of them got their designs, tech, and starters from the US or Russia/USSR. The a-bomb was not inevitable, it wasn't something that will just shake out over time given sufficient background tech. (I read an article or book on this a few years ago, I just can't remember the name at all, but you didn't cite your source on the Einstein quote either...)

First off, I Googled for you. I wouldn't want you to have to learn anything on your own. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Szilárd_letter

I never said the first guy to do it isn't "worth anything". Don't put words in my mouth.

Apple deserves protection for any novel innovation they made in the iPhone, as does any inventor. A collection of other novel inventions is not in and of itself novel. This isn't my opinion, it's case law: Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co v Supermarket Equipment Corp.

Some interactions in the iPhone UI were novel. It's ludicrous to claim everything was: I've cited examples several times of prior art.

The iPhone continues to copy to this day: top notification bar. Touchscreen keyboard. An expansion port for additional device features. These are evolutions of existing ideas and not novel new developments.

The iPhone didn't create the smartphone market. If you want to argue the Newton did, then we might be able to have an intelligent discussion.

 

[Chiropteran]

probably why the iphone never caught on.

McDonalds is obviously an incredible innovator, given their success. They should sue other restaurants for copying their inventions, such as a hamburgers, fries, and the idea of offering multiple sizes.

 

[TerryMathews]

McDonalds is obviously an incredible innovator, given their success. They should sue other restaurants for copying their inventions, such as a hamburgers, fries, and the idea of offering multiple sizes.

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.

 

[TheStu]

First off, I Googled for you. I wouldn't want you to have to learn anything on your own. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Szilárd_letterA

I never said the first guy to do it isn't "worth anything". Don't put words in my mouth. B

Apple deserves protection for any novel innovation they made in the iPhone, as does any inventor. A collection of other novel inventions is not in and of itself novel. This isn't my opinion, it's case law: Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co v Supermarket Equipment Corp.

Some interactions in the iPhone UI were novel. It's ludicrous to claim everything was: I've cited examples several times of prior art.

The iPhone continues to copy to this day: top notification bar. Touchscreen keyboard. An expansion port for additional device features. These are evolutions of existing ideas and not novel new developments.

The iPhone didn't create the smartphone market. If you want to argue the Newton did, then we might be able to have an intelligent discussion.

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?

 

[cheezy321]

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.

Do you have any proof they even applied for a patent? Or are you just making things up to confirm your own theories?