FORUMS: list search recent posts

The Patent Thing

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bill Davis
The Patent Thing
on Aug 27, 2012 at 11:50:46 pm

Interesting article on Gizmodo where Jesus Diaz argues that the Apple patent victory is a huge win for computing.

In part...

"The truth is that Apple's win only kills the shit smartphones and the unimaginative copycats who poop them out of their design boards busting with carbon paper. The people at Google, Samsung and HTC who thought "oh f**k this, let's all do the same."

Even Google proves the patent whiners wrong. In recent Android releases, smelling the inevitable outcome of the patent wars, tinkered with the interface enough that it finally felt new and fresh. And sometimes, its innovations were much better than Apple's own stuff. Oh, and guess what? Google patented those too. And when they didn't have the patents, they bought them. They will fiercely defend them against Apple or anyone else if the occasion arises..."

Full article here:

http://gizmodo.com/5833924/we-hope-apple-wins-the-patent-wars

FWIW.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 12:10:07 am

By "Apple Patent Victory" you obviously mean the one in the Dutch courts over a year ago, because that is what this article is about.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 12:44:12 am

Rather than just link to an opinion piece where one man says this was a good use of patent protection, I prefer to look at the big picture. You really should listen or read the transcript of the This American Life that Shane talked about Bill, because the problem is the companies using patents to block development and innovation. That is their primary business model and I am not talking about companies like Google or Apple because they are not necessarily the prime movers in this stifling use of patents.

The companies that actually develop products are forced to apply for patents as protection against the patent troll companies. However, I still feel that Apple in it's patent wars with Samsung is showing an increased attitude of using patents to stifle as much as to protect - in other words they are borderline trolling.

Finally the critical issue is that far too many patents are so general and the patent office seems unable to distinguish what is a real invention versus some trivial innovation which is how the original thread on this topic came up.


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 1:01:23 am

[Michael Gissing] " You really should listen or read the transcript of the This American Life that Shane talked about Bill, because the problem is the companies using patents to block development and innovation. "

I had the time to watch the TED referenced link - and disagreed with the position argued there - and posted my opinions about it in the original thread.

I was on deadline today for another broadcast piece that runs tomorrow - so I haven't had the hours to go back and listen to the This Amercan Life piece. But I'll try to.

Still, the overall point is that there is certainly more than one way to view these issues. I felt that Mr. Diaz's point that patent protection - even aggressive patent protection - is, on balance, an important driver of innovation.

I argued in my post to the TED piece that it's irrelevant whether Dylan used the same melody originally used by others to create his work. What matters is the commercial value he created by leveraging that melody into a singular marketplace success. The melody is not the thing that needs protection. Melody's are used and re-used all the time. But when a melody and lyrics are fixed into a tangible expression - and gain public awareness and traction - it is THEN that the value attaches to them. The person who breaches copyright isn't leveraging the NOTES in the song - they're leveraging "good will" that the song has accrued by virtue of it's very success.

Similarly, the fact that PARC invented the mouse concept is irrelevant. The fact that Apple converted the idea into a tangible expression that created brand differentiation is the economic success.

Same with the iPod. Music players came before it. But the iPod created a unique and massive brand value. And protecting that for the successful company is what Patents properly do.

The Gizmodo article I referenced takes the position that Apple's patent success actually improves the entire industry - since it encourages others to create similar value - and the chance of such success in and of itself is what drives the entire creative community forward.

Seems sensible to me.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 1:44:42 am

PARC did much more than invent a mouse 'concept'. They invented the actual mouse as well. It had three buttons. All Jobs did was make it cheap.

They also invented the GUI using click-able icons. The relevant point is that if Xerox PARC had patented those inventions, Apple would never have happened - nor would modern computing as we know it. PARC is an excellent example of how patents would have stifled development and innovation.

But the issue that needs to be recognised is that current behaviour by companies that police patents as a business are clearly stifling development and innovation, in spite of you finding minor instances where the pro argument can be made.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 1:46:33 am

[Michael Gissing] "PARC did much more than invent a mouse 'concept'. They invented the actual mouse as well. It had three buttons. All Jobs did was make it cheap."

And, rather stupidly, single-buttoned.


Return to posts index


Michael Gissing
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 2:46:22 am

Interesting quote from todays newspaper reports on the Apple v Samsung trial that just returned a judgement against Samsung. If the law experts are saying this then I am inclined to listen.

Patent system "out of control"

Before the verdict an intellectual property professor at the University of California Hastings Law School, Robin Feldman, described the case as unmanageable for a jury.

"There are more than 100 pages of jury instructions," Feldman said. "I don't give that much reading to my law students. They can't possible digest it.

"The trial is evidence of a patent system that is out of control. No matter what happens in this trial, I think people will need to step back and ask whether we've gone too far in the intellectual property system."

from - http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/decidedly-quick-apple-jury...


Return to posts index


Chris Harlan
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 3:14:44 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/08/25/apple_v_samsung_verdict_crea.....

Another blog.

"


This one, I tend to agree with. I also think the Gizmodo article about all the problems with the verdict is quite interesting:

http://gizmodo.com/5938219/why-the-apple-v-samsung-ruling-may-not-hold-up


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 4:12:47 am

[Chris Harlan] "This one, I tend to agree with. I also think the Gizmodo article about all the problems with the verdict is quite interesting:"

I don't know what to make of it. I see the points from every side.

Obviously, patent law needs reform, then all companies will follow those new rules. For now, the current system is in place.

I'm just wondering if reform will be "allowed" to really happen or perhaps more accurately, taken to task. If this trial is any indication, new laws stand to get absolutely swallowed by the details, corporate lobbying will dilute any progress, and people will hurry up and make mistakes so they can rightfully have a weekend with the family. Add to that a global initiative of differing governing rules, structures, and methods, it sounds like a perfect bureaucratic storm of stalemates.

Can someone just give us a proper fcs3 successor so I can go back to my little corner of the universe and let the adults in the room argue over which Buick to drive? I want a jet pack dinosaur laser.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 30, 2012 at 5:30:44 am

[Jeremy Garchow] " I want a jet pack dinosaur laser."

No dice dude.

Nobody can figure out whether the NSA, FAA, or the BLM (dinosaurs need grazing permits, after all) has jurisdiction.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 3:03:28 am

[Michael Gissing] "Patent system "out of control"

Before the verdict an intellectual property professor at the University of California Hastings Law School, Robin Feldman, described the case as unmanageable for a jury.

"There are more than 100 pages of jury instructions," Feldman said. "I don't give that much reading to my law students. They can't possible digest it.
"


And the fact that they've found a number of serious errors in the judgement suggests that it might be vacated. Apparently there are places where they awarded millions to Apple for things that they decided were not infringements in other parts of the document.


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 5:53:36 am

[Michael Gissing] "PARC did much more than invent a mouse 'concept'. They invented the actual mouse as well. It had three buttons. All Jobs did was make it cheap."

I disagree nearly totally. It wasn't the cost. It was attaching it to an entire system that started to transform the perceptions of the marketplace from a computer as something that is always keyboard driven, to something that was GUI and mouse driven.

THAT's the value Apple brought to the table. Without the expression in the Mac, the mouse itself has little value. It's another way of saying that "ideas" in and of themselves have little value. The value is in turning ideas into actions and products that creates additional value. Precisely what Jobs and the Apple team did with the mouse.

[Michael Gissing] "But the issue that needs to be recognised is that current behaviour by companies that police patents as a business are clearly stifling development and innovation, in spite of you finding minor instances where the pro argument can be made."

Are you actually arguing that this is an era of "stifled development and innovation???"

Excuse me but the EXACT opposite is true. Innovation is rampant. New technologies are cropping up like weeds. Everywhere. The best of them will become products as they always have. The worst of them will FAIL. Leaving any patents or other value preservation tools on the marketplace - precisely where they should be.

Innovate or die. And if you succeed in innovation, THEN you have the dollars to protect your patent. If you can't manage that patent into an income stream - then somebody with the economic strength to innovate and sustain a business will snap it up who can.

Harsh? You bet. Business survival of the fittest.

BTW, I'm not a big fan or a defender of this system. Merely one who recognizes that it's been the system for hundreds of years and while abuses of it rampant and certainly need to be dealt with - it's also created a massive culture of innovation all over the world.

How exactly do you incentivize innovation if you don't protect it?

Anyone?

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 6:47:04 am

[Bill Davis]"I disagree nearly totally. It wasn't the cost. It was attaching it to an entire system that started to transform the perceptions of the marketplace from a computer as something that is always keyboard driven, to something that was GUI and mouse driven"

Sorry Bill but if you ever want me or anyone to take your opinion seriously, then at least know your history. Even the recent pro Apple TV doco I saw on the history of Apple admitted the PARC concept of mouse driven GUI with clcikable icons was shown to Jobs and he just stole it. Look on the web and find that cute clip of Steve saying "all artists copy - great artists steal". His contribution was making a cheap mouse single button cheap as the PARC mouse was around $300 to make. That's it.

If Xerox had patent protection like you espouse, then Apple would never have happened. We live in an age that has benefited more from the fact that until recently software couldn't be patented. If you think the era we live in is because of patents then you really don't know this subject.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 6:50:48 am

[Michael Gissing] "If Xerox had patent protection like you espouse, then Apple would never have happened. We live in an age that has benefited more from the fact that until recently software couldn't be patented. If you think the era we live in is because of patents then you really don't know this subject."

Well said and exactly right.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index


al ellis
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 10:09:06 pm

'How exactly do you incentivize innovation if you don't protect it?'
i dunno, maybe ask tim berners lee that one.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 11:19:45 pm

[al ellis] "'How exactly do you incentivize innovation if you don't protect it?'
i dunno, maybe ask tim berners lee that one."


ROTFL (tm)


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 9:45:20 pm

[Michael Gissing] "PARC did much more than invent a mouse 'concept'. They invented the actual mouse as well. It had three buttons. All Jobs did was make it cheap.

They also invented the GUI using click-able icons. The relevant point is that if Xerox PARC had patented those inventions, Apple would never have happened - nor would modern computing as we know it. PARC is an excellent example of how patents would have stifled development and innovation.

But the issue that needs to be recognised is that current behaviour by companies that police patents as a business are clearly stifling development and innovation, in spite of you finding minor instances where the pro argument can be made."


This post needs some serious corrections. First, the PARC mouse as I saw it, was a block of wood and had two wheels that allowed it to go straight up and down, or straight right and left. No diagonal, and no circles.

But on to your larger point. No, PARC patenting that would not have stifled development. You conveniently fail to mention that Apple tried to license their tech... tried to buy... tried to do anything to to get it out there. PARC in their infinite wisdom said "we have no provisions for selling or licensing anything". Thankfully, John Warnock left and started Adobe so we could get laser printers and the PostScript language. Apple did the same for everything else. I think you'll have a tough time not admitting that where Apple took this very rough tech is to hell and gone past where PARC ever would have.

As for stifling competition, look at any country that has no patent or copyright protections... zero innovation. After all, what's the point... it'll only get stolen and you'll be saddled with all the R&D costs.

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 11:23:30 pm

[Mitch Ives] "As for stifling competition, look at any country that has no patent or copyright protections... zero innovation. After all, what's the point... it'll only get stolen and you'll be saddled with all the R&D costs.
"


Mitch, I don't think anyone is arguing that there shouldn't be patents. I think everyone is simply aghast at how out of hand the system has become.


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 7:38:08 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Mitch, I don't think anyone is arguing that there shouldn't be patents. I think everyone is simply aghast at how out of hand the system has become."

I agree Chris. I too have some concerns, but since I'm not privy to all the data, I can't really tell if it's out of control...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 5:42:07 am

Mitch, regardless of the block of wood mouse that you might have seen, history tells us that the mouse was taken by Jobs after seeing it at PARC. Xerox did market a computer two years before Apple with a GUI and mouse. I was only wrong that it was a two button mouse they sold. But don't trust either of our memories and check WIKI as the mouse was independently developed a few times decades before PARC anyway.

as to your other point, I sense you didn't understand my point to Bill that if PARC had used patents to block Apple, then it is likely that Apple would not have gotten of the ground. I didn't conveniently fail to mention anything because my point was about how lucky Apple was to get such free R&D when they were kick starting.

Finally at no stage have I said there is no need for patents. If you read all posts I have made in both threads my point is that the way software patents are being used these days is stifling development. That is not saying patents are all useless so argue with someone who thinks that. I stand by my comment that Apple was lucky not to be stifled by a software patent on the PARC GUI or a hardware patent on the mouse.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 6:23:49 am

[Michael Gissing] "history tells us that the mouse was taken by Jobs after seeing it at PARC. Xerox did market a computer two years before Apple with a GUI and mouse. I was only wrong that it was a two button mouse they sold. But don't trust either of our memories and check WIKI as the mouse was independently developed a few times decades before PARC anyway."

That's correct. The mouse was actually developed at Stanford Research Institute and first demonstrated to the public on December 9, 1968 by Douglas C. Engelbart:







Engelbart and his SRI colleagues demoed not just the mouse, but the graphical user interface, dynamically linked files, hypertext, and live on-screen collaboration. This demo is now dubbed "The Mother of All Demos" because in 1968, Engelbart and his team showed the world the future of computing.

Try imagining what that future would look like today if everything SRI demonstrated in 1968 had been patented out of the reach of others to build upon and refine. This is the point of Kirby Ferguson's brilliant Everything Is A Remix series.

Software patents are bogus.

BTW, when I was at LFL in 1987, Apple had Engelbart visit and consult with us on our work. One of my most cherished memories is of giving him a private demo of our early NLE and just getting to talk with him about the history and future of the mouse and computer interface. He is a gentleman, a true genius, and a giant in the history of computing.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 7:45:20 pm

Michael, I'm not discounting your points, just correcting the PARC info. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. My apologies for that.

I was around when all this went down (had five Lisa 2's BTW). I know the PARC story well... probably spent more time studying it than most people.

I personally believe that Jobs had Xerox's tacit consent on using this stuff. Many at PARC were not happy that none of this ever saw the light of day. Since I had the first LaserWriter here in 1983 ($7995), believe me, I'm glad John Warnock left and used PARC research to start Adobe.

Not sure I'd believe Wiki... too many mistakes.

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 3:41:24 am

[Bill Davis] "I argued in my post to the TED piece that it's irrelevant whether Dylan used the same melody originally used by others to create his work. What matters is the commercial value he created by leveraging that melody into a singular marketplace success. The melody is not the thing that needs protection. Melody's are used and re-used all the time. But when a melody and lyrics are fixed into a tangible expression - and gain public awareness and traction - it is THEN that the value attaches to them. The person who breaches copyright isn't leveraging the NOTES in the song - they're leveraging "good will" that the song has accrued by virtue of it's very success. "

Let's go thru this a little bit.

[Bill Davis] "The melody is not the thing that needs protection."

Then why did George Harrison get successfully sued over copyright infringement for using the melody of "He's So fine" in his composition "My Sweet Lord"? Why did Ray Parker, author of the "Ghostbusters" theme get sued by Huey Lewis for ripping off the melody to "Want A New Drug." And if melodies are not in need of protection where does that leave classical composers? Melody in fact is just as much in need of protection as lyrics, and is afforded that protection in court.

[Bill Davis] " it's irrelevant whether Dylan used the same melody originally used by others to create his work. What matters is the commercial value he created by leveraging that melody into a singular marketplace success."

What's irrelevant is the marketplace success of Dylan's songs. Copyright protection is not reserved only for big hits and commercial successes. What matters to me is the enduring quality of the songs, which has absolutely nothing to do with it's commercial viability.

[Bill Davis] "The person who breaches copyright isn't leveraging the NOTES in the song "

They are not leveraging the separate individual notes, any more than a plagiarist is leveraging the alphabet. They are leveraging the specific order and combination of notes.

[Bill Davis] "- they're leveraging "good will" that the song has accrued by virtue of it's very success. "

Sometimes this might be the case but often what they are leveraging was the beauty and imagination of the created work, as in cases where song writers take classical themes and re-work them for pop hits. I doubt many of the teens who bought "A Lover's Concerto" by the Toys back in 1965 ever heard Bach's Minuet in G Major, which is where the melody comes from. The song's value was due not to any "good will" but to the quality of the original composition. The copyright being in the public domain, much as Dylan's stolen melodies, Linzer and Randell were free to steal away to their hearts delight, and I'm happy they did because it resulted in a great song, but this had nothing to do with leveraging anything other than the beauty created by someone else.

As for the TED piece, even while I agree that patenting finger gestures, like patenting parts of the human genome that some bio tech companies are trying to get away with, is more than a little insane, the speaker's thinking is a bit shoddy. Dylan and Woody Guthrie used tunes that were already ancient and in the public domain. What they did hurt no one. The Beatles have every right to protect the use of their creations, the Grey album was an infringement on their rights, and unless I'm sorely mistaken Paul and Ringo and even George Martin are still alive to be hurt by it.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 1:45:34 am

[Michael Gissing] "You really should listen or read the transcript of the This American Life that Shane talked about Bill, because the problem is the companies using patents to block development and innovation. That is their primary business model and I am not talking about companies like Google or Apple because they are not necessarily the prime movers in this stifling use of patents.
"


I second that. The This American Life piece was excellent journalism.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 12:44:53 am

Uh, The article I quoted was from the front page of Gizmodo TODAY.

Mr. Diaz opened his article by referring to his position taken a year ago in response to that patent decision last year - but then went on to indicate his position is unchanged - and in fact, everything I quoted was written by him in the current article and refers to the current Apple case.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 1:37:51 am

[Bill Davis] "Uh, The article I quoted was from the front page of Gizmodo TODAY."

I don't know what you were quoting, but what you linked to is an article from Aug. 2011. See for yourself:


http://gizmodo.com/5833924/we-hope-apple-wins-the-patent-wars


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 3:05:43 am

[Chris Harlan] "[Bill Davis] "Uh, The article I quoted was from the front page of Gizmodo TODAY."

I don't know what you were quoting, but what you linked to is an article from Aug. 2011. See for yourself:"


Maybe this: http://gizmodo.com/5938193/


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 3:13:09 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Chris Harlan] "[Bill Davis] "Uh, The article I quoted was from the front page of Gizmodo TODAY."

I don't know what you were quoting, but what you linked to is an article from Aug. 2011. See for yourself:"

Maybe this: http://gizmodo.com/5938193/
"


Well, now--that looks right. Undoubtedly what Bill meant to link to.


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 4:58:33 am

Shameful victory.
How can nobody patent the round corners?
The patents and copyrights world is a can of worms.
Did you know that the famous "Smiley Face" icon is a trademark of a private company in more than 100 countries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiley
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 6:34:00 am

Software patents are bogus.
Picasso had a saying - "Good artists copy, great artist's steal". And we've always been shameless about stealing great ideas. -- Steve Jobs, 1996
I'm going to destroy Android because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go to thermonuclear war on this. -- Steve Jobs, 2010

So which one is it?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Pat Horridge
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 9:43:38 am

It was also insteresting to read that Apple refused to settle out of court on the Samsung issue. Thi isn't about revenue and getting the return and recognition from your ideas, even if your ideas where possibly somebody elses earlier. It's about crippling inovation.
The game is now around owning as many trights to as many ideas as you can. Not with the intent to profit from them by licensing but by prohibiting others from expanding on those ideas.
Granted sometimes that restriction forces a re-think and a better solution can emerge but the effort and cost to achieve that for the little gain is a price end users are paying.

It's hard to see where Apple see their stance taking them. Becoming even richer for sure. Having a greater control over the products in the market for sure. But how will the end users, the buys of these devices feel about the way Apple choose to do business in the world? And will that change the way they spend their money?

Pat Horridge
Technical Director, Trainer, Avid Certified Instructor
VET
Production Editing Digital Media Design DVD
T +44 (0)20 7505 4701 | F +44 (0)20 7505 4800 | E pat@vet.co.uk |
http://www.vet.co.uk | Lux Building 2-4 Hoxton Square London N1 6US


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 9:44:48 pm

[Pat Horridge] "Granted sometimes that restriction forces a re-think and a better solution can emerge but the effort and cost to achieve that for the little gain is a price end users are paying."

So is your contention that if these patents didn't exist then our phones and iPads would be cheaper?

How much?

Seems to me that the prices of these things are set based on desirability and upon the same supply and demand that sets the price of everything.

The market says an iPhone is well worth the subsidized cost. And even for many, the unsubsidized cost.

If patents didn't apply, what do YOU think the price of these items would be. And would that different be enough to make ANY functional differences to the businesses selling them?

Again, with the present admittedly imperfect system. There seems to be virtually NO restraint of innovation in the tablet or phone space. Plenty of sales. Plenty of competition. Pocket smart phones are accessible to virtually everyone but the very poor. And with subsidy and pre-pay models nearly universally available, the cost of the technology doesn't seem to be suppressing trade at all.

So what's the real argument here? What "innovation" is being thwarted by making giant companies such as these spar with each other to defend their tech and patents?

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 9:38:37 pm

[David Lawrence] "Picasso had a saying - "Good artists copy, great artist's steal". And we've always been shameless about stealing great ideas. -- Steve Jobs, 1996
I'm going to destroy Android because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go to thermonuclear war on this. -- Steve Jobs, 2010

So which one is it?"


Uh,

In the first quote the subject is an IDEA.

In the second quote the subject is a PRODUCT.

Why is this a difficult concept to grasp?

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 9:58:12 pm

[Bill Davis] "Uh,

In the first quote the subject is an IDEA.

In the second quote the subject is a PRODUCT.

Why is this a difficult concept to grasp?"


Wrong.

The first quote refers to specific technologies. These technologies were "stolen" because they were developed before technology companies learned to abuse a broken patent system.

The second quote reflects the hypocrisy of a company that owes its very existence to "stolen" ideas.

When I was at Lucasfilm in the late 1980's, my team and I were doing interactive software design research for Apple. I've been part of and have watched the software industry evolve for decades. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about and it has not changed for the better. Quite the opposite.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 11:18:52 pm

[David Lawrence] "[Bill Davis] "Uh,

In the first quote the subject is an IDEA.

In the second quote the subject is a PRODUCT.

Why is this a difficult concept to grasp?"

Wrong.
"


Careful, now. You need to grasp--however difficult it might be--that Bill has a patent pending on the "condescending "Uh,..." and that he's not afraid to use it.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 28, 2012 at 11:45:47 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Careful, now. You need to grasp--however difficult it might be--that Bill has a patent pending on the "condescending "Uh,..." and that he's not afraid to use it."

LOL, thanks for the reminder ;)

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 1:27:31 am

[Chris Harlan] "Careful, now. You need to grasp--however difficult it might be--that Bill has a patent pending on the "condescending "Uh,..." and that he's not afraid to use it."

Oh my god Chris. Didn't we go over this?

Go ahead read the quote again. This time without your interior snark. Like a regular person might say this in a regular conversation.

Here are the words...

"Uh,

In the first quote the subject is an IDEA.

In the second quote the subject is a PRODUCT.

Why is this a difficult concept to grasp?"



Now notice that in the first line, I used "uh" (not "DUH" or "you dolt" but merely "uh" like someone's trying to make a polite point in a conversation which is precisely where most people use similar expressions.

The middle two graphs are merely an letter accurate reflection of the words used in the OP.

Finally, try to read the last question, not with some pre-conception about my snakiness - but as a simple declarative sentence - which is precisely what it is.

A declarative sentence. Without a single word that implies any negative tone whatsoever.

You just can't read anything I write without imbuing it with tone and intent that is simply not there.

I'm actually sorry that you didn't make it to Vegas. If you had, you might have learned that I'm NOT someone who tends to actually use snark and dismissal of others. Yes, I can get annoyed and get snippy. Just like you. But it's NOT my default state - as others here who HAVE met me can easily attest.. So please try not to read every thing I write with a tone that's simply not there.

Thanks for the consideration.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 1:42:46 am

[Bill Davis] "You just can't read anything I write without imbuing it with tone and intent that is simply not there.
"


Uh huh.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 1:29:41 am

For heaven's sake Chris. Didn't we go over this?

Go ahead read the quote again. This time without your interior snark. Like a regular person might say this in a regular conversation.

Here are the words...

"Uh,

In the first quote the subject is an IDEA.

In the second quote the subject is a PRODUCT.

Why is this a difficult concept to grasp?"



Now notice that in the first line, I used "uh" (not "DUH" or "you dolt" but merely "uh" like someone's trying to make a polite point in a conversation which is precisely where most people use similar expressions.

The middle two graphs are merely an letter accurate reflection of the words used in the OP.

Finally, try to read the last question, not with some pre-conception about my snakiness - but as a simple declarative sentence - which is precisely what it is.

A declarative sentence. Without a single word that implies any negative tone whatsoever.

You just can't read anything I write without imbuing it with tone and intent that is simply not there.

I'm actually sorry that you didn't make it to Vegas. If you had, you might have learned that I'm NOT someone who tends to actually use snark and dismissal of others. Yes, I can get annoyed and get snippy. Just like you. But it's NOT my default state - as others here who HAVE met me can easily attest.. So please try not to read every thing I write with a tone that's simply not there.

Thanks for the consideration.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 1:46:08 am

[Chris Harlan] "Careful, now. You need to grasp--however difficult it might be--that Bill has a patent pending on the "condescending "Uh,..." and that he's not afraid to use it.
"


Wow, a patent on a thing that provably doesn't exist!

That HAS to be a first and I'm almost kinda proud to almost have been part of such groundbreaking rhetoric here!

But a quick google search dashed my dreams.

Seems the ONLY mention of the phrase in the entire Google ovure - is Chris post right here!

So he's managed to invent his reading of my intent out of whole cloth - then convince at least one other that it's a fact.

Brilliant.

To argue that your opponent is beating one up with something that doesn't actually EXIST - and then get others to agree - Wow.

Spin-reading. I love it. Much more convenient than traditional "spinning" as practiced in politics - since it's requires nothing more than the ability to filter everything you read through an internal personal "tone" that you get to unilaterally apply.

Call the big political parties immediately. (doesn't matter which)

Your fortune awaits...

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 1:16:11 am

[David Lawrence] "When I was at Lucasfilm in the late 1980's, my team and I were doing interactive software design research for Apple. I've been part of and have watched the software industry evolve for decades. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about and it has not changed for the better. Quite the opposite."

You're actually saying that the software industry is not healthier and generating more income today than it ever has in history?

I'd LOVE to hear any statistics or facts to back that up.

Seems to me (and I'm just an uneducated observer in this area) that most people in most industrialized societies across the world are gladly exchanging more of their wealth for software solutions today then humans have at other time in history.

Seems to me to be just about the MOST healthy economic playground on the planet.

So please explain to me how the patent system over the past couple of decades has led to "change for the worse" - which is what you're arguing here.

I look around and see more people spending more for software today than ever before. There are tens of thousands of healthy companies out there based on that reality.

And more people have more access to quality hardware at good prices as well.

So is the contention that it would be "a bit better" without these patents?

Or would we just be wading through vast numbers of cheap crappy clones of the same ideas over and over? Which sounds to me a bit like the Japanese electronics industry back in the 60s to the 80s before IP protections evolved to address the ability of one country with a low wage structure taking the designs of another and running with them.

Maybe it's because I remember seeing so many crappy Behringer mixers that were total clones of Greg Mackie's designs - but cheaper and without the build quality.

Seems to me that the phones in this suit were pretty much the same damn thing writ modern.

BTW, my son just got a new Samsung Rugby. It's NOT an iPhone clone - and as a ruggedized choice, it looks pretty decent. So it's not like they can't compete with their own designs - they can. So what's the deal with needing to go the Behringer route if it's NOT to take advantage of the IP good will Apple earned?

Set me straight if you think I'm wrong.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 3:19:15 am

[Bill Davis] "You're actually saying that the software industry is not healthier and generating more income today than it ever has in history?"

Yup. I don't equate software patent monopoly profits with a healthy software ecosystem.

[Bill Davis] "I'd LOVE to hear any statistics or facts to back that up. "

Well, for starters, here's a report you can read from the EFF that estimates that over 11 billion dollars a year is wasted in software patent lawsuits. Guess who pays that bill? Maybe you can explain how this waste is good for innovation and consumers.

The fact is if you're a small company starting out in the garage, your innovative product can be crushed before it even hits the market if another company wants to go after it. All they have to do is hold a patent. They don't even need to make a competing product. This happens all the time. Here's just one example.

No one's arguing that companies should be able to steal source code and sell copies of other's work as their own. The problem is that the US system grants overly broad patents to foundational computing processes and uses. This creates software monopolies. Monopolies are bad for choice and for innovation.

The system is broken. Software patents are bogus.






_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 5:09:47 am

Listen to this:








While reading this:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/08/google-rola-agrees-to-license-3g-relat...


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 5:18:21 am

Awesome. Thank you.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 6:18:41 am

[David Lawrence] "Well, for starters, here's a report you can read from the EFF that estimates that over 11 billion dollars a year is wasted in software patent lawsuits. Guess who pays that bill? Maybe you can explain how this waste is good for innovation and consumers.
"


THIS is the problem? When someone quotes me a number about a part of something - I find it useful to examine the entire thing to see if the problem is large or small in real terms. A cursory search of the world wide software market says this: According to market researcher DataMonitor, the size of the worldwide software industry in 2008 was US$303.8 billion, an increase of 6.5% compared to 2007.

Ignoring the fact that the industry has likely grown a LOT in the past 4 years, it's still puts the problem we're addressing at somewhere around 3% of the market.


[David Lawrence] "The fact is if you're a small company starting out in the garage, your innovative product can be crushed before it even hits the market if another company wants to go after it. All they have to do is hold a patent. They don't even need to make a competing product. This happens all the time. Here's just one example."

I agree with you in a sense, but I think it makes my point better than yours. The referenced software (caller ID lookup) isn't very "innovative" at all. It's a garage guy trying to simply be there first to suck some bucks out of the market with a pretty trivial tool. He got run over by more sophisticated competitors and became collateral damage. That's a simple fact of business life. At the "garage" level, the point is to take the lump, learn from it, and move on. My kid went out to peddle comic books at a street fair. He got tagged by the fair organizers and charged $25 bucks for a selling permit. (half the regular fee, cuz he was just a kid) So he ended up with a loss rather than a profit. Fair? I'd argue perfectly fair. He didn't make money, but he learned to be better prepared to compete next time.

Same with your garage app developer. If they best they can do is a zip code database lookup app with little value beyond that - they can't compete in the real world of business. If the patent thing hadn't hit them - something else would. Because the basic idea couldn't generate enough business results to sustain a business team who thought the original idea strong enough to bring resources on-line in order to fight the patent suite or any other roadblocks along the way. Same as it's ever been. Business is trough. It's not played on ONE level, it's played on many. You don't get to level two until you master level one. Period.

[David Lawrence] "The problem is that the US system grants overly broad patents to foundational computing processes and uses. This creates software monopolies. Monopolies are bad for choice and for innovation."

That's an opinion. Which is fine. But it's not a fact. A fact would be to look out and see an actual software monopoly out there. Can you point one out to me?

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Pat Horridge
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 6:39:58 am

Interesting for me as I have a first hand experience of how the Apple Samsung dispute seems to be panning out.

I used to Own an iPhone and had it 18 months. Nice device but I became frustrated by how locked in Apple made it and the lack of openness it allowed. Coupled with the crippling iTunes for PC you have to use. So I switched to the Galaxy S2 and realised just how useful a smartphone can be. A greater choice of apps to suit the way I need to work. The design was familiar enough to make the operational change comfortable. Would I consider it a "rip off"? No it was so different in so many way no way could I consider it an iPhone copy.
My son has just purchased a Galaxy S3 and I was showing him some of the operation stuff and a whole bunch of stuff has been changed and not for the better. But clearly to ensure it's in no way a "copy" of an iPhone. Does that make it a better phone? No it doesn't.
And it a shame Apple refuse to allow others to build (at a chargeable cost) on their good ideas and instead insist on restricting products and development. The Galaxy S2 is a great Phone and exceeds the iPhone in many ways and Apple are now intent on effectively killing it off.
Will that make better iPhones or even better non Apple phones? Most likley no it won't it just restricts choice.

Pat Horridge
Technical Director, Trainer, Avid Certified Instructor
VET
Production Editing Digital Media Design DVD
T +44 (0)20 7505 4701 | F +44 (0)20 7505 4800 | E pat@vet.co.uk |
http://www.vet.co.uk | Lux Building 2-4 Hoxton Square London N1 6US


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 7:36:17 am

Sigh.

Let me make this simple for you.

Apple did not invent multi-touch or pinch-to-zoom. This is a fact. Please see the Jeff Han video above.

Apple absolutely deserves its success for bringing multi-touch and pinch-to-zoom to the market. But it absolutely does not deserve the power to force competitors to pay a high tax on or cease using technologies it did not invent.

That's we're talking about.

The US patent system is broken. Especially for software. It creates as much incentive for patent trolls as it does for true innovators.

The current 20-year lockdown on foundational computing methods is insane. EFF has some outstanding ideas on how to make things better.

[Bill Davis] "That's an opinion. Which is fine. "

and you know what they say about opinions...

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 1:49:56 pm

Where will it all end?







Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 4:01:27 pm

THAT was marvelous!


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 4:22:10 pm

[Chris Harlan] "THAT was marvelous!"

LOL, YES!

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 4:10:02 pm

[David Lawrence] "The fact is if you're a small company starting out in the garage, your innovative product can be crushed before it even hits the market if another company wants to go after it. All they have to do is hold a patent. They don't even need to make a competing product. "

Amen brother David.

One of our clients that we did a rebranding for a couple of years ago is one of the most innovative LED companies in the world. They're a small company, with very big ideas and a breakthrough product that won both Popular science and the lighting industry's product of the year award recently.

Problem is they're so broke from fighting an ongoing patent battle with a big lighting company that a product that might literally revolutionize industrial and corporate lighting wallows as cheap chinese competition continues unfettered.

This went on for years and we couldn't market the product because all of their resources were depleted and tied up in an absurd patent suit with a company that neither made nor could make the product themselves, but they had a patent so sweeping that it literally killed the actual innovation.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31:36 pm

[Jim Giberti] "Problem is they're so broke from fighting an ongoing patent battle with a big lighting company that a product that might literally revolutionize industrial and corporate lighting wallows as cheap chinese competition continues unfettered."

But Jim,

[Bill Davis] "He got run over by more sophisticated competitors and became collateral damage. That's a simple fact of business life."

Besides, the lighting industry is bigger than ever! Profit!

Sorry, sorry, I couldn't resist. I'll shut up now. ;)

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 11:03:20 pm

[Jim Giberti] "They're a small company, with very big ideas and a breakthrough product that won both Popular science and the lighting industry's product of the year award recently."

I'm curious then. If their tech was so "breakthrough" why couldn't they partner with a stronger company to fight back? Seems to me that if your product has that much potential to revolutionize an industry, you'd have suitors lined up around the block for the mere chance to ride along on your coat tails?

Could it be that the product just "seemed" to be revolutionary to some - but others didn't see it that way?

IIRC, the Popular Science history was of monthly "the next big things" that very seldom ever got leveraged into actual products. Wonder why?

Again, I suspect there's a reason that the "product of the year" turned out not to be enough to turn their tech into a revolution.

Not I'll freely admit that they might have gotten steamroller'd by a patent fight from a less worthy competitor. But if their innovation skills are strong enough, they'll bounce back. If not they won't. It's the ebb and flow of real-life business. Not always fair, for sure, but typically as consistent as the tides.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 29, 2012 at 11:48:07 pm

[Bill Davis] "I'm curious then. If their tech was so "breakthrough" why couldn't they partner with a stronger company to fight back? Seems to me that if your product has that much potential to revolutionize an industry, you'd have suitors lined up around the block for the mere chance to ride along on your coat tails?"

I'm curious too. Why do you always have to be the biggest dick in the room?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 30, 2012 at 5:08:22 am

[Jim Giberti] "I'm curious too. Why do you always have to be the biggest dick in the room?
"


Because I'm not in real life and I'm compensating?

(Sorry, just couldn't resist.)

Look, I'm not trying to be a dick about this. I'm trying to put forth arguments that I think are valid and that espouse alternate points of view.

People know what to expect here. Four or five guys on one side, three or four of us on the other.

It's the kind of debate that's kept this forum so popular.

Personally, I don't like untested contentions because they make for lazy arguments. Everyone here is in the choir. Most everyone works in professional editing and as such, shares a view that their experiences are the proper perspective from which to view industry changes.

That may be true in some cases but is it true in ALL of them?

I started here because it seemed EVERYONE was saying X was crap. I started testing that then conventional wisdom - and the more I did, the more I became convinced that the prevailing attitudes were short-sighted and often off target.

Plus I suppose I have an emotional stake in Apple's continued success. They've been my software provider of choice for well over a decade and have enabled a lot of my success with their tools.

Side issues like this patent thing are just interesting to me - as they appear to be for others.

Problem with that?

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Patent Thing
on Sep 5, 2012 at 10:52:02 pm

[Bill Davis] "Problem with that?"

in the ancient history of the internet, and where you regularly reside bill - "problem?"



http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/trollface-problem.jpg

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Patent Thing
on Aug 31, 2012 at 4:32:20 am

Here's more on pinch to zoom:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/30/3279628/apple-pinch-to-zoom-patent-myth


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Patent Thing
on Sep 13, 2012 at 12:43:11 am

If you live by the sword!.....

http://androidandme.com/2012/09/smartphones-2/samsung-htc-to-block-us-eu-sa...


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Patent Thing
on Sep 13, 2012 at 12:50:33 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "If you live by the sword!.....

http://androidandme.com/2012/09/smartphones-2/samsung-htc-to-block-us-eu-sa....."


Another win for consumers!

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Patent Thing
on Sep 13, 2012 at 1:00:43 am

It's a power struggle (ie cock - fight) at this point.

Somewhere, attorneys are staying up late and reaping the benefits while people preorder new phones from every manufacturer.

The scales of Justice at work.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Patent Thing
on Sep 13, 2012 at 3:54:53 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's a power struggle (ie cock - fight) at this point.

Somewhere, attorneys are staying up late and reaping the benefits while people preorder new phones from every manufacturer.

The scales of Justice at work.
"


Yup. And, i'm sure this will lead to new innovations. New innovations in billable hours.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: The Patent Thing
on Sep 13, 2012 at 4:12:16 am

I was actually struck by how many "new" features on this iPhone are things I've seen around for a very long time already. (My phone is the HTC Thunderbolt mentioned in the article.) I don't know anything about LTE, so maybe there really are 434 things for Apple to patent that Samsung and HTC hadn't patented already -- BUT THERE AREN'T SO ALL OF YOU SHUT UP -- but Samsung and HTC jumped immediately to mind today, and I wondered how long it would take them to file papers. THIS long.

We need a name for patent spam. Or is "patent spam" good enough?

Tim Wilson
Vice President, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Patent Thing
on Sep 13, 2012 at 4:33:14 am

[Tim Wilson] "We need a name for patent spam. Or is "patent spam" good enough?"

Spatents? Patspam. Naw. Trying to hard. Patent spam, it is.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Patent Thing
on Sep 13, 2012 at 4:50:05 am

[Tim Wilson] "I was actually struck by how many "new" features on this iPhone are things I've seen around for a very long time already."

Like what? Hardware stuff?


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: The Patent Thing
on Sep 13, 2012 at 6:08:43 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Like what? Hardware stuff?"

Yeah, the thing that jumped out at me was the 4-inch screen. Surely Samsung and HTC patented the 4-inch form factor. Right?

Anywayyyyy....

I know that coming to market first doesn't mean patented first, but Samsung has been advertising taking pictures while also recording video for a while. The Epic 4G has been out over a year and takes panoramic pictures with the stock camera. There are others, but I remember that one off the top of my head.

There were other features that I know I've seen before, but to get more specific, I'd have to look at the iPhone features again and I really don't want to. LOL

In general though, I didn't see anything that struck me as all that new, EXCEPT to iPhone, even compared to some year-old phones from other people. But I definitely think any iPhone user should dump whatever they have and grab this one ASAP. Within the four walls of the iPhone world, this looks like their first real step forward in a long time, and it looks like a pretty good one.

Tim Wilson
Vice President, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Patent Thing
on Sep 14, 2012 at 11:41:26 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Yeah, the thing that jumped out at me was the 4-inch screen. Surely Samsung and HTC patented the 4-inch form factor. Right? "

Yeah but with 88 degree angles in all four corners. It's an engineering breakthrough. 3 lefts now make a rhombus. The books are being rewritten as we speak.

[Tim Wilson] "I know that coming to market first doesn't mean patented first, but Samsung has been advertising taking pictures while also recording video for a while. The Epic 4G has been out over a year and takes panoramic pictures with the stock camera. There are others, but I remember that one off the top of my head.

There were other features that I know I've seen before, but to get more specific, I'd have to look at the iPhone features again and I really don't want to. LOL"


This is what I have been wondering about, and its merely for my own curiosity and fascination with the human condition. NOw that there's been a few whole days of tech press, there's been talk in these articles that Apple is going to fall down to ordinary, the stock price is going to peak, Apple is now boring, the iPhone is sending clear messages that Apple can't innovate it's way out of a cardbox box even though they have innovated the cardboard box itself, etc and so forth.

These parts that these tech companies source are all making really similar parts. What does everyone expect from Apple, Samsung, Motorola, etc? I am asking seriously.

You can have a taco or a burrito, but they still have mostly the same basic ingredients. If you go to different restaurants, perhaps one has a different homemade sauce which perhaps changes the flavor completely. You either choose to take a bite out of the Apple ecosystem, or you choose to munch on the Ice Cream Sandwich, or you choose to take the Metro ecosystem. The tortilla is more or less the same. Or am I oversimplifying this again with a sh*tty analogy?


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: The Patent Thing
on Sep 15, 2012 at 3:31:23 am

It is inevitable that they look the same. Samsung makes most of the screens.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Patent Thing
on Sep 15, 2012 at 5:59:17 pm

[Michael Gissing] "It is inevitable that they look the same. Samsung makes most of the screens."

So all phones have the exact same Retina display, or can Apple order their patented version of a Samsung manufactured screen?

Did Samsung have the first touch screen phone?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Patent Thing
on Sep 13, 2012 at 3:11:34 pm

[Tim Wilson] "I was actually struck by how many "new" features on this iPhone are things I've seen around for a very long time already. "

"I'm always open for a new phone":







Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]