131–140 of 218 posts
Even though I'm generally in favor of moderately strong patent laws, this is starting to get ridiculous. The statute of limitations on these sorts of things should be 1-2 years max.
And patents should be A) Sufficiently complex. No more slide-to-unlock trivial bullshit. B) Strict checks on prior art. Slide-to-unlock, again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Apple attacked first
I don't think that Apple suing to protect its intellectual property is wrong. But even if I did, I don't buy the logic that doing the 'wrong' thing is okay because the other guy did it first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
let's be clear. this war is apple's doing, not "all the tech giants".
Nokia and Motorola pulled the trigger. Everyone is responsible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not trying to suggest that Google has nothing to do with this, they obviously do, but I think saying that Motorola is suing them using Motorola patents is more accurate. Anyone paying attention to this field would know that Motorola is a Google subsidiary these days, and the verge even states that in the article. Anyways, the "Google sues Apple" headline just seemed picked because it would draw more clicks rather…
Motorola (Mobility) doesn't exist as a separate entity anymore. It is part of Google now, and as such Google is technically the one doing the suing. Google owns Motorola.
Does anybody else feel all the tech giants standing around with their patents in hand is like all the characters standing around with guns like at the end of Reservoir Dogs? "Nobody innovate or we'll shoot!" It's intriguing at first, but you can only keep it up so long before the plot line gets annoying because no one is doing anything (or innovating), or someone gets shot.
I disagree. It's more about money than innovation. The non-copy arrangement that Microsoft & Apple have led to Windows Phone which I think most would agree is the most unique and maybe the most innovative platform. Would consumers be better off if Microsoft could have puked out an iOS/Android clone instead? Arguably Windows Phone as we know it may be suffering commercially because it is a departure from the iOS/Andro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Apple attacked first
I don't think that Apple suing to protect its intellectual property is wrong. But even if I did, I don't buy the logic that doing the 'wrong' thing is okay because the other guy did it first.
Do you think that Lodsys suing to protect its intellectual property is also not wrong?
I don't buy the logic that doing the 'wrong' thing is okay because the other guy did it first.
Using force in self-defence is unacceptable?
There are a lot of 'Apple deserves this' type of comments in this thread that I'd like to address. The patent system is probably flawed (IANAL), but companies do need to have a way to defend their innovations. Apple did re-invent the smart phone in 07, and has been the design leader since then. Android has followed in their footsteps - witness the design shift from their pre-iphone roadmap which consisted of blackber…
That just shows how little you know about Android. To take one example, Android's Intent system is amazing. It is one of the big things that makes Android so customizable and flexible. It enables wonderful features like generic sharing (and, impressively, replacing the share menu itself). Intents have worked so well that Google and Mozilla (among others) are bringing them to the web.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> What Apple did do was market this newer form factor very successfully Marketing had a lot to do with it, but so did the quality of the OS. Having gone through several iterations of Windows Mobile devices prior to the first iPhone, the iPhone was the first smartphone that I used that I didn't want to slam on the floor and stomp on repeatedly.
Sure, I'll buy that the iPhone was an improvement. Apple took an idea that was already out in the market, and made it not suck (as much). Is that enough justification for them to sue everyone else in an attempt to lock them out of the market?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple has sold over a hundred million iPhones and has sewn up a large chunk of the most profitable market segment. That should be enough of a reward.
Apple defined the landscape that all Android phones now inhabit. Your view doesn't make sense to me. If you buy a nice car by working hard, should I be allowed to take it from you after you have had 'enough' time to drive it?
The smartphone market is not zero-sum. There is plenty of room for multiple similar products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a sense, you're right. Apple offered to license it's tech to Samsung in 2010 for a whopping $40/device - personally, I don't think that a fee that exorbitant counts, but that's personal opinion. I thing Apple knew they were offering an untenable fee and that Samsung would have no choice but to refuse.
Apple doesn't need to support the bottom-feeders. If Samsung can't pay Apple, that means they're not making enough money on their phones. Samsung and all Android phone makers are fighting a losing battle as long as they keep such low profit margins. It's the failure of the licensing of one common OS for all phones. Nothing distinguishes these phones enough to allow one company to raise above the rest. Samsung and the…
Apple is fighting a losing battle trying to protect their exclusive, high-end slice of the smartphone world. They've already conceded the future (e.g. India, China and the rest of the developing world). Now they're just haggling over how long the present is going to last.