backtop


Print 273 comment(s) - last by phenimation.. on Mar 18 at 6:55 AM


Apple CEO Steve Jobs  (Source: Business Insider)

Apple is suing HTC to prevent the import of the Nexus One and other smart phones to the U.S. Apple claims that HTC is "stealing" its multi-touch technology and other patented iPhone tech.
Suit could be the first of many, Jobs' comments hint

One trend we mentioned in our coverage of Windows Mobile 7 was how its look was rather unusual in that it didn't imitate the chiclet icon-on-a-grid look that was first introduced by Apple's iPhone and since embraced by scores of different phones, including many Android phones.

It turns out Apple took notice of this and other similarities as well, and decided that the other companies were ripping off its flagship product.  The Cupertino electronics giant today filed suit against handset maker HTC with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and in U.S. District Court in Delaware.

However, the suit covers much more ground than merely multi-touch and layout.  In total Apple is suing it for violation of 20 patents.  Among the patents that Apple was granted that it says HTC is "stealing" are a patent on an "Object-Oriented Graphic System", a patent of cell phone processor undervolting ("Conserving Power By Reducing Voltage Supplied To An Instruction-Processing Portion Of A Processor"), and touch-screen unlocking ("Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image").

Steven P. Jobs, Chief Executive Officer at Apple was quite outspoken about the suit in an Apple press release put out this morning.  He comments, "We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it.  We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."

Apple says the iPhone is responsible for "reinventing the mobile phone", and compares the popular device to its personal computers that helped launch the home computing revolution.  It writes:

Apple reinvented the mobile phone in 2007 with its revolutionary iPhone®, and did it again in 2008 with its pioneering App Store, which now offers more than 150,000 mobile applications in over 90 countries. Over 40 million iPhones have been sold worldwide.

Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its award-winning computers, OS X operating system and iLife and professional applications.

HTC has not yet responded to the suit.  We've contacted HTC, Apple, and Google (see below) seeking additional comments.

The suit may revolve around HTC Hero, a multi-touch Android OS (1.5) phone from HTC released around the world last fall, and the Nexus One, the Google-HTC exclusive multi-touch handset powered by Android 2.1 that just released in January.  Apple last year was granted a patent on mobile multi-touch, which it reportedly used to pressure Google not to release multi-touch in the first generation version of Android OS (Google did go on to include multi-touch in newer versions of the OS, such as the versions used in Google's Nexus One and the HTC Hero).

In the suit Apple is seeking a court order to block the import of Nexus One and HTC Hero hardware, according to 
Business Week.  The handsets are manufactured in Taiwan (HTC is based in Taoyuan, Taiwan).

Apple also has a pending countersuit against Nokia for similar cell phone patent infringement.  In that suit, filed in December, Apple accuses Nokia of stealing technology covered by 13 iPhone-related patents.  Apple's general counsel Bruce Sewell issued a statement at the time that echoed Mr. Jobs' most recent remarks.  He commented, "Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours."

Nokia claims that the iPhone rips off technology covered in 10 of its patents, including patents on wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption technology.  It filed suit in October.

Based on Mr. Jobs comments and the new litigation, more suits may be coming, particularly against those who use multi-touch in their devices or have similar interfaces.  Possible targets include Palm (whom it has threatened in the past), Research in Motion, or Motorola.  It could also go straight to the source of many of the handset OS's and sue Google, but that seems unlikely given the intimate relationship between the companies and Google CEO Eric Schmidt's deep involvement with Apple, Inc.

Is Apple a dreamy inventor turned innocent victim, exploited by greedy handset makers like it suggests?  That's open to debate.  But it's clear that Apple is eager to use litigation as a tool to try to knock down obstacles to its iPhone's dominance.

Update 1: Mar. 3, 2010 8:24 a.m. --
A Google spokesperson responded to our inquiry yesterday, commenting:
We are not a party to this lawsuit. However, we stand behind our Android operating system and the partners who have helped us to develop it.
We're still in the process of getting in touch with HTC and have heard nothing but silence from Apple.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What?
By xxsk8er101xx on 3/2/2010 11:22:13 AM , Rating: 5
Wait - apple invented icons? I'm lost...




RE: What?
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/2/2010 11:29:46 AM , Rating: 4
That's "Object-Oriented Graphic System", mister, and yes Apple invented that... and multi-touch, and processor undervolting, and touch screen unlocking.

Don't you dare try to make a modern cell phone, or they will sue!


RE: What?
By nvalhalla on 3/2/2010 11:39:01 AM , Rating: 5
Last week I filed a patent for "forceful exhalation of gases through membranes for the purpose of emitting soundwaves." I'm waiting on approval from the Patent Office still, but once it comes through, man...


RE: What?
By Anoxanmore on 3/2/2010 11:47:16 AM , Rating: 5
Yes well, I filed the "Electronic distrobution of Princess Bride modified quotes on random tech news blog sites" Patent about fifteen years ago...

I'm filthy rich now :)


RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 3/2/2010 8:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
Are you actually admitting to having seen the Princess Bride?


RE: What?
By BZDTemp on 3/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: What?
By Anoxanmore on 3/3/2010 9:09:28 AM , Rating: 5
Of course I am, my favourite Movie from the 80s.


RE: What?
By Vorian on 3/3/2010 3:20:10 PM , Rating: 3
Inconceivable!!!


RE: What?
By VaultDweller on 3/3/2010 12:21:31 PM , Rating: 3
I thought it was quite normal and non-noteworthy to admit to both seeing and loving the movie?


RE: What?
By EricMartello on 3/3/2010 9:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
I love that movie. One of the best of its kind. They don't make em like that anymore!


RE: What?
By reader1 on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By reader1 on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By MojoMan on 3/2/2010 3:26:27 PM , Rating: 5
LOL... You work for Apple, don't you reader1? Yes, I'm almost positive you do, although you'd never admit it. Yes, reader1, I'm sure under-volting and icons are all Apple innovations. LOL! You crack me up. Thanks for the laughs.


RE: What?
By reader1 on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By inighthawki on 3/2/2010 4:19:27 PM , Rating: 4
lol, you seriously think all patents issued are completely unique and innovative? The patent office will "rubber stamp" anything that comes through...


RE: What?
By reader1 on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By SiN on 3/2/2010 5:05:18 PM , Rating: 5
You become more and more visible on these forums.

Unfortunately, the very vague and broad patent system does not work in a fair trade environment.

Instead it allows companies like Apple to abuse the system to corner larger market share, no less like Microsoft has done in the past.

The other companies are only improving on what apple laid the groundwork for. Apple just tastes bitter lemons (zing!).


RE: What?
By inighthawki on 3/2/2010 5:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you see, most people, unlike Apple, don't patent common technology, since it's not actually patentable...


RE: What?
By reader1 on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By inighthawki on 3/2/2010 6:14:36 PM , Rating: 5
Theres a large difference between something that can be patented and what the idiots at the patent office actually approve.


RE: What?
By weskurtz0081 on 3/2/2010 5:15:19 PM , Rating: 4
Well, if company A patents some BS in 2006, then company B patents the same BS in 2007..... well, the court will say "This BS has already been patented". The way to fix the problem is to stop BS from getting patented.


RE: What?
RE: What?
By afkrotch on 3/2/2010 6:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
Apple's 2009 multitouch patents. Guess what? The same as the University of Delaware's multitouch patents. Hell, the guys who were at the University are working at Apple now. Course, the patents still belong to the University and not the individual.

Instead, Apple simply stole the technology, then patented it. Since our patent system is a huge retarded mess, it was approved.

Course, universities will just let the technology take off, then will sue the pants off Apple, when they can get a huge return.


RE: What?
By rudy on 3/2/2010 7:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
Then why isn't there news on this apple is pretty big I would say at the height of their popularity. So why has the university not filed yet?


RE: What?
By afkrotch on 3/2/2010 10:30:18 PM , Rating: 1
Money. Why sue now? Wait 2 more years, then sue for a lot more money.


RE: What?
By dark matter on 3/3/2010 7:10:55 AM , Rating: 2
So that's what that $40 billion Jobs has stashed away is for, to pay for all the lawyers.

Apple, the law firm.


RE: What?
By aapocketz on 3/3/2010 3:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
I am curious what the deal agreement is with Apple and Fingerworks, University of Delaware, and John Elias and Wayne Westerman. They didn't invent multitouch of course, but they did a lot of work developing it for consumer products like the fingerworks keyboards. Who is getting paid, and who is getting stiffed?

Apple is very secretive about that stuff though, unfortunately.


RE: What?
By omnicronx on 3/3/2010 4:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think there is one. Wayne Westerman did much of the work he brought to Fingerworks at the University of Delaware, his thesis is freely available and he evens credits much of his findings (including gestures such as the pinch) to work done in the early 80's.

Here lies the entire problem, it is technically the the University of Delaware that has the rights to a lot of his research, much of which is involved within many of FingerWorks and now Apples patents.


RE: What?
By Omega215D on 3/4/2010 12:48:07 AM , Rating: 2
Next time any geek that does something unthinkable with their system should file a patent. I remember under-volting was done way before the iPhone. That way the geeks can protect the world from turtle neck wearing freaks.


RE: What?
By T2k on 3/4/2010 2:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That way the geeks can protect the world from turtle neck wearing, angry dying freaks who hate the world because they have incurable cancer.


Fixed it fore 'ya...;)


RE: What?
By themaster08 on 3/3/2010 3:35:38 AM , Rating: 2
Reader1, do you really think that Apple's so-called patents are the only ones which are being infringed?

It might sadden you to read this, but Apple are guilty of infringing 10 of Nokia's patents with the iPhone.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheAp...

I guess with your logic of the patent system working, Apple really are guilty of infringing Nokia's patents, and should be punished accordingly.

Take your head out of the sand, kid. Once Apple even sniff the slightest ounce of competition, they cry wolf and file lawsuit for any asinine excuse they can muster. They are anti-competitive.


RE: What?
By raphd on 3/2/2010 7:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
reader1 works at the apple suicide line. When people realize how much they got ripped off, they need someone to talk to.


RE: What?
By Pirks on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By Griswold on 3/3/2010 3:11:59 AM , Rating: 2
Since we all hope that you actually curl up in a corner and die, they wont attribute this quote to you - for the slim chance that you actually deliver on that offer...


RE: What?
By Pirks on 3/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By seamonkey79 on 3/3/2010 9:05:58 AM , Rating: 1
1st stage is denial. The act of believing that one is not what one is. In fact, lunacy is often shown by claiming to be the opposite of what one is, and even vocalizing said opposition.

Troll saying that he "pwns" trolls.

Also, lunacy makes some rather humourous dopes eating on their feet.


RE: What?
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/3/2010 10:27:54 AM , Rating: 1
Might actually help if you "pwned" PC noobs, the only noob getting "pwned" here, is you, on a daily basis.


RE: What?
By Pirks on 3/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: What?
By B3an on 3/4/2010 5:49:13 AM , Rating: 2
Pirks do you realise that you are a joke on this site? and that everything you post does NOT make Apple look good, it makes them look bad, because you're beyond a idiot.

If you really do like Apple you will stop posting for the sake of them.


RE: What?
By Drag0nFire on 3/3/2010 10:33:58 AM , Rating: 2
I bet he's Steve Jobs, going undercover on the Internetz.


RE: What?
By Bateluer on 3/2/2010 3:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
Man, I love your posts. They're so hilarious.

Funny how these technologies were first developed by Xerox back in the 70s.


RE: What?
By reader1 on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By afkrotch on 3/2/2010 6:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
It wouldn't surprise me if 50 different companies hold all the same patents that Apple holds. There are so many overlapping patents out there, it's not even funny.

Also, unprecedented track record for innovation? They can't even come up with a name for a product, without stealing it.

iPhone, wasn't there name to begin with. iPad, wasn't there name to begin with. Everything they've come up with, it was just stolen from elsewhere and cleaned up a little. Then morons like you think,"Wow! They're so innovative", cause you don't even do the research to see where any of the stuff comes from.


RE: What?
By michael2k on 3/3/2010 12:36:01 AM , Rating: 2
Didn't Apple purchase those rights with shares of AAPL? Thus the claim, rightly or wrongly, of inventing the UI?

Xerox definitely had a hand, but more or less the window, mouse, pointer UI we know came to fruition with the Apple Lisa, in 1983.


RE: What?
By luseferous on 3/3/2010 2:08:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Xerox definitely had a hand, but more or less the window, mouse, pointer UI we know came to fruition with the Apple Lisa, in 1983.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_%28company%29

You mean Xerox invented the technology then Apple came along and copied/borrowed/stole and eventualy paid for it. Then produced the Lisa off the back of Xerox's work.

Not at all like the complaints raised in the article.


RE: What?
By chick0n on 3/2/2010 8:53:15 PM , Rating: 3
Apple didnt invent $hit.

Apple always use existing technology and sometimes OUTDATED technology. package it nicely, make a big fuze about it, then claim it as their own. LMAO

Multi Touch is one example. Apple didnt invent it. but the retarded Patent office grant it to them. ROfL.

This is why the patent system fails.

and you fail too. Moron.


RE: What?
By frobizzle on 3/2/2010 4:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
****NEWS FLASH****

Steve Jobs announces the new iTurd! Comes in 7 different shades of brown!! Tapered ends for more pleasurable excretion!

(Note: Anyone not now paying royalties when they take a dump will be open for a patent infringement suit by Apple.)


RE: What?
By ashford on 3/3/2010 8:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
does this mean i have to fart quietly now


RE: What?
By KWRussell on 3/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: What?
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/2/2010 12:20:43 PM , Rating: 5
quote:

Jason, would you mind explaining to everybody why you jumped on this HTC suit story so quickly, while this story...


I have no responsibility to "explain" that to you. I don't have time to cover every story.

In this case, though, I did not elect to cover it because I had not read about it . I definitely will look into that further. Expect a news story sometime today or tomorrow.

I'm assigned a good portion of my leads, like many journalists, and I do try to find anything that's missed, but if people don't send stories to me there's no guarantee they will be covered.

I do appreciate you bringing it to my intention, though I disagree with your insinuation that I somehow am guilty of wrongdoing for covering the HTC story but not that one.


RE: What?
By Yawgm0th on 3/2/2010 2:15:01 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
In this case, though, I did not elect to cover it because I had not read about it .
I think I speak for everyone who reads DT when I say that an admitted lack of total omniscience on your part is completely and utterly unacceptable and we will no longer be visiting the site.


RE: What?
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/3/2010 10:31:00 AM , Rating: 1
Speak for yourself....


RE: What?
By sprockkets on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By Smilin on 3/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: What?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By KWRussell on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By sprockkets on 3/2/2010 4:46:08 PM , Rating: 1
Funny thing too, as it would garner his requisite page hits and make his quota for the week.


RE: What?
By scrapsma54 on 3/2/2010 3:18:53 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever crack Jobs is on I want it, cause i swear apple patented everything and invented squat.


RE: What?
By safcman84 on 3/3/2010 5:35:08 AM , Rating: 2
Any chance of you asking someone knowledgeable about the legal side of patents, whether Apple have a chance of getting away with this? (or if anyone reading this article who has knowledge about this could reply...).

Has their been any past examples where patents on common technology have been held up?

I have never been a great fan of Apple, but the more I read about the stuff they try and do and/or get away with, the more I can't stand them.


RE: What?
By scrapsma54 on 3/3/2010 2:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, definitely. Patents are not put in place to prevent people from making "ripoffs." They are used to make sure the people who put the patent out gets money.
I do recall apple won a patent long ago with e-machines, but they lost against microsoft, which stopped apple inquisition in its tracks from crucifying the pc marktet.

So technically apple is being a troll to new victims.

The mobile market is still has infants, and it keeps getting smaller as companies such as Apple and Samsung bully other companies out.
I agree that apple should protect its intellectual property, but this is going too far. Apple didn't invent multi-touch, they didn't invent processor undervolting, and didn't invent interactive icons either.
Microsoft is greedy? I don't think any product that the case and operating system is worth more than actual components and adds an additional $500


RE: What?
By msheredy on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By Amiga500 on 3/2/2010 11:37:48 AM , Rating: 4
So they "invented" the idea of reducing voltage to reduce power consumption?

Get real.


RE: What?
By msheredy on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By Amiga500 on 3/2/2010 11:47:43 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
It's obviously more in depth than that dude.


No. Its not really:

"Conserving Power By Reducing Voltage Supplied To An Instruction-Processing Portion Of A Processor"

Means reducing the core voltage (while potentially leaving the uncore alone on a different voltage plane).

I guess Intel and AMD better watch out with all their CPUs that can adopt a different power plane dependant on usage.


RE: What?
By msheredy on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By Sahrin on 3/2/2010 12:04:44 PM , Rating: 5
Prior Art, dude. The patents are going to be invalidated.

Apple can't just sneak up behind an old lady washing dishes and exclaim, "Sponges with soap! We invented that!"


RE: What?
By reader1 on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By StevoLincolnite on 3/2/2010 1:17:36 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Apple could do that, if they invented the sponge or the soap. In this case, they did.


They also invented the bucket to catch the crap you dribble. ;)


RE: What?
By MojoMan on 3/2/2010 3:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... that gives me an idea. I better invent the "iBucket" before Apple patents that too!


RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 3/2/2010 8:17:19 PM , Rating: 1
Then Apple will sue you for violating their trademark because they trademarked i"Whatever". At least I believe its a trademark.


RE: What?
By alanmcm55 on 3/3/2010 10:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
You think you're joking but it can happen. In the UK we have a cheap airline called easyJet. They then diversified into car rental and called it easyCar. And then they started a financial company easyMoney. Then they started a whole load of other companies starting with 'easy'.

Now they sue anyone who sets up a company with the word 'easy' in it.

Whats not to stop Apple doing the same with 'i'


RE: What?
By tedrodai on 3/2/2010 1:34:19 PM , Rating: 5
After seeing this, I've finally talked my grandfather into submitting a patent request for his invention of "Decrementing the thermostat control on the heating and/or air conditioning unit thermostat of a residential or commercial building for the purposes of saving money on the utility bill".

You thought you were safe, but you'll soon have to pay back all that money you've been saving, and our family will finally get the paycheck we've deserved all these years!!!!!


RE: What?
By sprockkets on 3/2/2010 4:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
Well, um, actually...

http://www.google.com/patents?q=thermostat&btnG=Se...

I bet you can find there what you are looking for is already patented. :)


RE: What?
By themaster08 on 3/2/2010 1:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
So they invented the movable grid format for icons did they? I suggest you look at the Nokia 7650.


RE: What?
By themaster08 on 3/2/2010 1:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
Or for that matter, any Symbian S60-based device!


RE: What?
By weskurtz0081 on 3/2/2010 2:02:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by reader1 on March 2, 2010 at 1:07 PM Apple could do that, if they invented the sponge or the soap. In this case, they did.


Really? You do realize this has been common practice by CPU makers for the better part, or maybe even more than a decade.... right?


RE: What?
By omnicronx on 3/2/2010 4:05:14 PM , Rating: 4
Exactly, this is a last ditch move for Apple. You can't just sit on a patent knowing full well that it is being infringed.

This move really does not surprise me either, 12+ new android devices are being released this year, all of which will most likely have multitouch, Apple may finally have some trouble on their hands.

Even if this delays HTC (and as a result other android manufacturers utilizing multitouch) for a few months its a win for Apple.

I also find it funny that Microsoft has not been named in this suit, as their Surface platform has prior art written all over it!


RE: What?
By Aloonatic on 3/2/2010 6:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
Damn you evil Apple, only you would stoop so low!!!

What next? Putting "rumble" feedback into a hand held device and getting a patent on that too, in order to stifle the competition who've had devices with something similar for a while already? What sort of company would stoop so low as to try these sorts of shenanigans?

Only Apple, that's who :D


RE: What?
By Spoelie on 3/2/2010 12:12:13 PM , Rating: 5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art
quote:
Prior art ([...]), in most systems of patent law, constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.

A lot of patents can be made invalid by that clause. It would surprise me if no phone prior to the iPhone used this trick in idle.

The patent office issues patents pretty generously, the courts can clean up the mess afterwards.


RE: What?
By cochy on 3/2/2010 9:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The patent office issues patents pretty generously, the courts can clean up the mess afterwards.


Wow, how does one get a job at this office? They obviously don't do anything all day. No wonder Einstein was able to write the Theory of Relativity while working at one of these. Not like his day job was demanding...


RE: What?
By sprockkets on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By lightfoot on 3/2/2010 12:00:50 PM , Rating: 5
More likely is that Apple paid the patent fee, and the US Patent Office rubberstamped what ever they submitted. I doubt that they even read it, much less researched anything.

The US Patent Office is a joke; patents are pretty much useless until they have been tested in court.

There is no way in hell that a patent on desktop icons, multi-touch interfaces, or under volting a processor will hold up in court. Why? Because ALL of these technologies were in widespread use prior to Apple releasing the iPhone. Simply adding the phrase "on a mobile device" does NOT make it a new innovation. In order for a patent to be valid the innovation must be "novel, useful, and non-obvious."

I predict Apple having at least 20 patents invalidated in the upcoming months...


RE: What?
By superPC on 3/2/2010 1:23:13 PM , Rating: 5
I completely agree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitouch was invented by IBM way back in the 80's. underclocking has been done before in PC and phones. i don't even know what apple mean by "object oriented graphic system" but mobile phones has been using icon for almost a decade.


RE: What?
By superPC on 3/2/2010 1:25:44 PM , Rating: 3
sorry i meant that touch screen was invented by IBM and multitouch was developed by University of Toronto.


RE: What?
By sprockkets on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By omnicronx on 3/2/2010 3:57:51 PM , Rating: 5
People really need to get this through their head, just because you are the first to bring something to mass market, does not mean you automatically have the patent rights to the underlying technology.

Microsoft's surface for example had prototypes before the iPhone was a glimmer in Steve Jobs eye, and it was fully demo'd before the iPhone release and obviously before these multitouch patents were ratified.

Furthermore you can't patent the action of the the gesture itself. What you can patent is the linkage between said gesture and a specific action, in this case Zooming/Unzooming.
In other words even if Apples patent is upheld all HTC would have to do is change the zoom gesture to something else. They could even still use the pinch gesture as long as it is not tied to zooming.

Also generic gestures such as double tap to zoom would be hard to go after, double tap is not limited to the multitouch environment and has once against existed long before the iPhone.

Of course all of this assumes prior art does not exist, and that the patent is even valid in the first place. (which in my opinion it is not). Just because a patent was approved does not mean an automatic be upheld, HTC will have the chance to prove these patents are invalid. In my opinion they surely have a case, and I would guess that Microsoft will be more than happy to help out their leading Windows Mobile device manufacturer.


RE: What?
By sprockkets on 3/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: What?
By The0ne on 3/2/2010 5:01:29 PM , Rating: 5
Just so everyone knows, I've submitted a new gesture of my own for patent rights. It uses my middle finger and....well, you get the idea :D

Anyone and everyone is free to "expand" on the use of this with my permission here. And please, show it visually to Steve Jobs next time you see him. Maybe that will give him some new ideas like making it quicker, bigger and obviously easy to use.

If any good comes out of this, it would be that Steve hijacks my idea completely, sells it to consumers and FINALLY consumers see that he is indeed "FCKING" them over. Until then, continue with being zombies.


RE: What?
By The0ne on 3/2/2010 5:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
Holy crap, Steve is fast! O.o Look at the picture shown, he's already halfway there with my new gesture! He has the motion but have yet to perfect the middle finger motion. It's only a matter of time.


RE: What?
By omnicronx on 3/2/2010 5:24:10 PM , Rating: 3
My point is surface has been in development for years, and until the iPhones release we were all kept in the dark about what these 'multitouch gestures' really were (it was not part of the keynote in january, so how could have MS copied them). MS definitely had something similar at the time for a device that had been in development since 2003, with its final hardware design being completed in 2005.
quote:
Which again, where did you see multi-touch gestures in use, aside from Fingerworks, prior to the iphone? That will be a tough case.
http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html Here is a good history, it flat out shows that the pinch predates Fingerworks. In fact Wayne Westerman (co founder of Fingerworks) did most of his work for the University of Deleware in which he gave credit to the previous work of others 'His thesis cites Matha's 1982 work which introduced multi-touch, as well as Krueger's work, which introduced - among other things - the pinch gesture. ' So not only were there previous gesture based multitouch devices, but much of his work could still be technically owned by the university he did his work for.

Its also well documented that Apple did they research on the subject, this should also further invalidate the patent. You are required to disclose any knowledge of prior art during patent fillings.


RE: What?
By sprockkets on 3/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: What?
By Helbore on 3/3/2010 6:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, how many people would buy a Surface, at 5-10 thousand dollars?


So are technolgical developments only considered prior art or patentable if they happen to be sold at mass-market prices?

Making something affordable doesn't make you the inventor.


RE: What?
By omnicronx on 3/3/2010 3:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
Are you really that dense? Do you really think that because Windows Mobile does not have multitouch that its not possible for MS to have a special product that does? WinMo was designed to use resistive touch screens, which do not support multitouch, they can select down to a single pixel and as a result, big buttons, larger gui components etc are not required.

As much as Apple would love us to believe, capacitive screens are far less accurate than resistive screens. Apples enlarged gui objects are not a choice, they are necessity.

The only reason Multitouch kind of works well on the HD2 is because the screen size is so damn large 3.7" (WOW), my smaller device with a 2.8" screen for example would be a terrible user experience.

I also don't understand why you think units sold has anything to do with it. (which by the way is already used around the world, from hotels, to military use). Bringing a product to mass market is a not a requisite of prior art.


RE: What?
By bhieb on 3/2/2010 11:45:15 AM , Rating: 1
His point was don't blame Apple blame the screwed up patent office for granting it. In the US our way of defining who "invented" something first IS (unfortunately) our patent system. Our system says Apple invented this, Apple is only working within that system (albeit they know damn well they didn't invent CPU undervolting).

They are a business and as such are out to maximize profit (in fact obligated to do so for their shareholders), suing can be a effective way to do this unfortunately.


RE: What?
By sviola on 3/2/2010 2:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They are a business and as such are out to maximize profit (in fact obligated to do so for their shareholders), suing can be a effective way to do this unfortunately.


Unless of course, you keep loosing and having to pay all the legal costs...


RE: What?
By mcnabney on 3/2/2010 5:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, that is a complicated idea.

A business is indeed tasked with maximizing shareholder value, but frequently there are costs to taking legal action. A great deal of a company's value is in what is called 'goodwill'. Poor corporate behavior has a negative impact on goodwill and in this case would likely exceed any benefit to the suit.


RE: What?
By MrBlastman on 3/2/2010 11:38:37 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously Einstein isn't working for the patent office anymore. :(


RE: What?
By Amiga500 on 3/2/2010 11:50:40 AM , Rating: 2
Looks like Georg Ohm is in trouble though ;-)


RE: What?
By Malhavoc on 3/2/2010 11:38:33 AM , Rating: 2
Another an injustice served by the patenting committees.


RE: What?
By reader1 on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By Pirks on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By tastyratz on 3/2/2010 12:14:10 PM , Rating: 2
Innovation isn't about the patent race and who can title and secure as many ambiguous and ridiculous patents first. Most of them just squelch so much growth its ridiculous. That mentality is what got the US patent system to where it is today: trash.

Don't condone and encourage the patent race, it should be first to innovate and protective of true invention.


RE: What?
By Pirks on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By HotFoot on 3/2/2010 1:02:59 PM , Rating: 4
Having such as system that requires more than the bare minimum of court-time increases costs tremendously. That hurts industry. Just look at healthcare. It could be so much cheaper if fewer lawyers needed to get involved to settle disputes.


RE: What?
By Pirks on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By HotFoot on 3/2/2010 1:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
A technologically educated patent office clerk vs. a corporate lawyer. I realise that's not a sentence, but it should be so obvious no verb is required.

It's also not obvious that the same total number of man-hours need to be spent. I would argue that fewer hours would be wasted if more time was put in up-front during the patent application process.

Furthermore, I think the clause of 'non-obvious' being a requirement for a patent to be granted needs to be expanded to 'non-obvious to a qualified expert in the field'. So many of these patents would be viewed as common-sense, non-innovative solutions by a professional in the field, but Joe Blow on the street would have no clue.

So, no, I don't agree with you that it would cost just as much to do the work to deny a patent in the first place as it would to have two companies go to court years later, arguing whether the patent should be tossed out or not. The latter is probably at least an order of magnitude more expensive, let alone the opportunity costs associated with distracting the creative individuals at at least one firm, or even the unnecessary market uncertainty investors face when backing a product.


RE: What?
By Pirks on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By weskurtz0081 on 3/2/2010 2:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you have to review EVERY SINGLE patent in a patent office? I seriously doubt they just create one huge stack of patents and sift through them whenever a new one gets there.... over and over and over.

Plus, I imagine lawyers make a LOT more money and have to pay the same experts to do the research that could otherwise be done on the front end.

Factoring in the cost of lawyers, I would have lean towards litigation costing more.


RE: What?
By Pirks on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By weskurtz0081 on 3/2/2010 4:23:49 PM , Rating: 3
I would imagine if the patents were indexed and therefore able to be searched efficiently, that it wouldn't be to terribly difficult to take care of it. Just isolate

In this case though, if I am a little guy going up against a huge company, I think it would be fairly difficult to out spend the large company in the courts to uphold any legitimate patents claims I have. Whereas, if the patents had been properly dealt with to begin with, well I wouldn't have to worry about that.

Plus, if the patents were properly vetted to begin with, you would probably have a LOT less stupid patents filed every year, which would result in less time wasted in the courts, and less work to be done up front to begin with.


RE: What?
By JediJeb on 3/2/2010 2:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
If the patent office would update their system to even the late 20th century and have all patents indexed in a cross-searchable database then the validation of patents versus prior patents would be much quicker. Add that in to a system where patent officers are hired because of their background in certain fields and have the patents reviewed by the people with the proper knowledge to review them and so much of these bogus patents would be stopped in the very initial phases of approval.

It would prevent things like the Kodak instant camera lawsuit. Kodak started making instant cameras and later Polaroid sued because they held the patent. In the end many people ended up with cameras they could no longer use because Kodak was barred from making any more film for them. Had this been taken care of up front, it would have effected far fewer people and saved everyone involved a ton of money. Letting the courts decide after the fact is one of the mindsets that has clogged the court system in this country and is doing nothing but making lawyers rich. A little time invested up front can save a lot of time and money from being wasted in the end.


RE: What?
By rudy on 3/2/2010 7:54:28 PM , Rating: 1
Here is a reason why they may not do that. In the globalization era patents are no longer issues of a single country. They are broad ranging. And treaties like the PCT mean that the US and any country wants to be the one to own a patent. Then lawsuits and money are wasted within the country and you are more likely to have a revenue stream coming into the country. The US is one of the major patent holding or trolling countries.

So basically for the patent office it is really no loss and possibly a gain to just approve most patents. And it certainly is for the country if you compare to other countries. Although within the country their are heavy costs to pay for certain companies.

What I am saying is I do not think the patent office much cares and they may even be instructing the examiners to shift to the side of being more liberal rather than risking not letting something go. And this is a perfect example take a US company Apple hand them patents that definitely should have been rejected for prior art and allow them to sue foreign companies which will wast lots of money in the US court system at best case, may have to pay royalties or could end up barred from selling a product.

2 new fields biotech and computers are have a really hard time figuring out how to work in the patent system. And I do not think their is a solution because of the special interest of everyone including the US government to solve the problems.


RE: What?
By Pirks on 3/2/2010 9:15:10 PM , Rating: 1
rudy, this was one of the most insightful and eye opening posts I saw on DT since masher left us. thank you.


RE: What?
By crystal clear on 3/2/2010 9:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
Pirks this is for you ... have a good laugh.

Talking about Steve Ballmer - Last October, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer scoffed at the notion of smartphones becoming replacements for PCs.

"Let's face it, the Internet was designed for the PC.

The Internet is not designed for the iPhone ," Ballmer told the Associated Press. "That's why they've got 75,000 applications — they're all trying to make the Internet look decent on the iPhone."


RE: What?
By crystal clear on 3/2/2010 9:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
Also this-

To be entirely candid, the iPhone opened our eyes as to some things that needed to be done that were not in our plan. "Some execution had really gone astray," Terry Myerson, vice president of Windows Phone Engineering at Microsoft, told The New York Times over the weekend.


RE: What?
By Kurz on 3/2/2010 12:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
We officially have a Schizophrenic.
Though I think reader1 was the original voice and then he created a separate entity to support him in all his wild view points.

Organizing menus shouldn't of been a patent.
These BS patents from our corrupt and retarded patent office is a cause of many ills.

Oh well lets see how this all plays out.


RE: What?
By bplewis24 on 3/2/2010 4:26:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There was nothing stopping anybody else from securing those patents before Apple did.


Yes there was. It's called "integrity" and "ethics".

Brandon


RE: What?
By reader1 on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By bplewis24 on 3/2/2010 5:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
No, patents are not shameful nor immoral. But securing patents for things you know you did not invent, is.

Brandon


RE: What?
By reader1 on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By afkrotch on 3/2/2010 7:10:56 PM , Rating: 2
No, it's Apple's fault for rewording an existing patent, then filing for a patent with it.


RE: What?
By amanojaku on 3/2/2010 11:40:49 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
chiclet icon-on-a-grid look that was first introduced by Apple's iPhone
That's complete fuckin' bullshit. My blackberry 8700 has that same layout, and I got mine two years before the iPhone came out!

And like you said, the icon-on-a-grid concept has been around since the first GUI. No way in hell Apple created that.


RE: What?
By msheredy on 3/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: What?
By amanojaku on 3/2/2010 11:55:41 AM , Rating: 3
Not on the Blackberry, but I could do that with my Sony Ericsson T610, which also came out before the iPhone. I can do the same on my Motorola RAZR. So, once again, this isn't new. And seriously, a patent for moving icons around? Are you serious???


RE: What?
By AlterBridge86 on 3/2/2010 12:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
You brought up an awesome point that completely slipped my mind...BlackBerry has had that layout since the very first Blackberry, the 850/950's. AND - the icons are most definitely movable. Highlight the icon you want to move, then press the Alt key and click the track wheel. It gives you the option to move the icon or hide it.


RE: What?
By themaster08 on 3/2/2010 1:45:09 PM , Rating: 5
Nokia 7650 released in 2002, with icons in a grid formation with the ability to move them around.

Apple really get on my nerves. Piss the Fuck off!


RE: What?
By antimatter3009 on 3/3/2010 4:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
You really need to stop blaming Apple and start blaming the patent office. If Apple is suing someone for violating a patent on multitouch, then that's because the patent office granted them a stupid patent. I can't see blaming Apple (or anyone else) for either filing for dumb patents or for suing competitors once they have them. Yeah, it would be nice if they didn't, but I don't expect corporations to let their competitors violate their government-granted monopoly rights just because it makes them feel good. What I do expect is for the government to only grant monopoly rights where it is warranted. Unfortunately, I am almost always disappointed, and that, in my opinion, is where the failure lies.


RE: What?
By Solandri on 3/2/2010 1:41:21 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I haven't owned one of those but were you able to relocate the icons or were they in fixed locations? If they were fixed (iPhones are movable) than that it probably the difference.

Why should that make a difference? Movable icons have been around on computers since the 1970s, probably earlier. Adding the words "on a phone" to a pre-existing idea does not make it patent-worthy.


RE: What?
By msheredy on 3/4/2010 11:50:14 AM , Rating: 2
The difference is that a computer is not a mobile phone.

One thing that wasn't mentioned, at least I don't think so, is the question of when did Apple submit their patent request. This is more than likely the key to everyone's outrage on this suit. If Apple did indeed submit their patent request prior to other phones being made with the icons then it's definitely within Apple's favor to press the issue.


RE: What?
By frobizzle on 3/2/2010 1:23:43 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.

So by competition, Lord Jobs means we will get patents on everything, especially technologies that we did not even invent, and then sue anyone to protect our frivolous patents?

Yeah! Now, I get it!


RE: What?
By mxnerd on 3/2/2010 2:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone is lost and scratching their heads.


RE: What?
By Yongsta on 3/2/2010 3:53:36 PM , Rating: 3
Steve Jobs - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU (Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal. We've been shameless).


Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By munky on 3/2/2010 1:03:41 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe then they'd start focusing on giving the consumers what they really want, instead of hyping up crippled hardware tied to locked-down software and trying to patent everything under the sun.




RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Pirks on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By munky on 3/2/2010 1:28:11 PM , Rating: 5
Only a bone-head fanboy would want that... I'm talking about normal people.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Pirks on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By munky on 3/2/2010 2:49:23 PM , Rating: 3
PC's are not locked down, you can easily run Linux on them.
Where do you think the Linux fanboys bought their machines, at the "Linux Store?" LOL...

And what does your strawman argument have to do with Apple's crippled locked down platform?


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Pirks on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By munky on 3/2/2010 3:04:12 PM , Rating: 4
No, what you are is trolling and diverting the topic away from the crippled, locked down iphone and ipad.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Pirks on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By munky on 3/2/2010 4:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
Bullsh!t... Apple locked down the iphone that you can only install stuff from their app store, which first has to be approved by Apple, and they can remove it at their will. Any other lies you want me to squash while we're at it?


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Pirks on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By munky on 3/2/2010 6:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
All that adult-theme software Apple removed must have been viruses then? Have you heard of viruses on other phones not under Apple's control? Safety is just an excuse Apple uses to fool dumb people, while maintaining iron-fist control over the iphone.

Apple already restricts root access, and they own the SDK which limits what the apps can and can't do.

Here's a really trivial question for you - why would Apple want exclusive right to distribute iphone apps when the apps cannot do anything Apple didn't allow in the SDK?


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Pirks on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Kurz on 3/3/2010 2:07:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Safety is not only about viruses. Pron could also be considered unsafe by many iPhone users, hence the restrictions.


Damn I guess Getting Jizz on the phone is unsafe.
Or the fact I'll get weird looks by looking at porn.

quote:
Because SDK allows too much. Apple's safety checks via App store ensure that this extra freedom is not going to be used to hurt someone, in a broad sense of the word.


Nope... its because Apple wants your money.
Don't blame them... I just don't buy their product.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Aloonatic on 3/3/2010 4:02:18 AM , Rating: 1
I can't believe I'm defending pirks but..

You do realise that there is more to safety than physical safety, or even anti-virus safety? I assume that what pirks meant by "could also be considered unsafe" is safety from a psychological stand point. What would you want your kids to have (yes yes, won't somebody think of the children :-o) in their school bag/pocket? A device that they can easily access pron on, or one that you know the manufacturer is controlling the content on?

As for them making money with their apps. Since when have people been anit-capitalist on here? They aren't forcing you to buy an iPhone either. They aren't holding a gun to your head. Yet a fair few iPhones and iPod touches have been sold I believe.

People know the deal when they sign up. Indeed, many sign up because they like the simplicity and piece of mind that the thoroughly checked/vetted content of the app store offers. They can finally use a device without having to worry too much about if it will work, that they don't need a "techy" or their nephew/niece/son/daughter to set up, and they don't have to have "insider" knowledge or trawl the internet to be able to find and install software.

For the record. I'm not an apple fan, have never bought an Apple product, I hate iTunes and want to drag my wife away from her iPod, as it's the only reason why iTunes is on my machine. Nor do I want an iPhone, as the above closed system is not for me. Although I'm not sure that an Android is that much more of an open platform. Maybe WinMobile7 will be? But that does not mean that I cannot see or understand why many many people, possibly the majority like the system that Apple are offering


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Kurz on 3/3/2010 4:40:47 AM , Rating: 2
Devices should be monitored by the parents.
You can't blame the device or apps if the parents aren't watching those said kids. I can't really think of a reason of making a virus for Apple products unless you are trying to extract data or flat damage the phones.

Still the SDK should prevent that stuff from happening.
Especially on a closed platform that are Apple products.

I am just saying I am not anti-capitalist (Wasn't sure if that was directed at me). I just stated I don't blame them for making money, though its one reason why I don't buy their products (for myself at least).

The main reason for people wanting it is the same reason people love Lexus, Gucci, bebe, or any brand really.
Apple has done a great job at selling a particular product.
I don't really like apple, and I tend to have a very functional view on things. People love buying into apple's products, for functionality, social reasons as well.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Aloonatic on 3/3/2010 5:07:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Devices should be monitored by the parents.
No argument there. But how many parents are remotely as tech savy as their children? Even many of the people here will proabably find that their kids will find ways to circumvent any content or age restrictions. The censorship angle is one that you might have a point on to be fair. If pron is legal in your country, then why not allow it for lonely adults? Again, is up to them. Don't buy an iPhone if you wnat mobile pron is Apples's message I guess. I suppose that leaves those who wanted mobile porn and bought an iPone before the changes in their policy high and dry. Well, the female iPhone owners at any rate ;-).

As for my mention of being anti-capitalist. The "they just want your money" comment was what I perceived as somewhat anti-capitalist. As, what else would a company want? To know how your day's been? Which kinda goes along with the the Apple presitgue brand thing, which is true of course. But again, what's wrong with that? Unless you really want it, but can't afford to buy into it? Else, why should you care? Or should all devices have their prices and features standardised? By the state maybe?


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Kurz on 3/3/2010 8:52:12 AM , Rating: 2
Pirks tends to say some untrue stuff about the motiviations of companies. I just wanted to say the reason for the app store is for profit nothing else really. Though if apps can cause your Iphone to crash thats saything something about the OS not doing its job.

Go back up to see what I was getting at with him.


By Aloonatic on 3/3/2010 11:16:00 AM , Rating: 2
That's cool. Although I still don;t lknow what other reaon that you think Apple created the app store for, or should have created it?

They made it to make as much money as they could? Was Android market made for alturistic reasons? Everything any comercial company ever does and ever will do is to make as much money from it as they possibly can.

As for apps making things crash too, well that happens on all platforms. Usiually becuase of poor programming on both parties side, by the OS and application/executable writers. No OS will ever be perfect. To expect as much is silly.

A company taking a stand to help to minimise this risk isn't such a bad thing tho surely? As I said before, people like that. Indeed, are willing to pay more for it. We are in the age of truly mass adooption of computers and software, so people really do value not having to rely on someone else to come and sort out their problems, so if they can be reassured that what they are buying has been checked and will work then they will pay extra for that.

As it is, it's not something that you might value, but it doesn't man that others don't, and Apple should not be able to make money from that, or be slighted/attacked for doing so, IMHO.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Pirks on 3/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By munky on 3/3/2010 3:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Safety is not only about viruses. Pron could also be considered unsafe by many iPhone users, hence the restrictions.

Don't like porn, then don't install it. Porn was there originally and then got removed... that's not about safety, that censorship.

quote:
Because SDK allows too much. Apple's safety checks via App store ensure that this extra freedom is not going to be used to hurt someone, in a broad sense of the word.

More BS. Apple designed and developed the SDK, and they control whatever it allows. Your safety argument is getting more and more hilarious.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Pirks on 3/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By munky on 3/3/2010 1:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I can call it censorship, because that's exactly what it is... If it was really unsafe, then why did Apple allow it in the first place?

quote:
They designed SDK to give extra freedom to developers

Wrong again... The SDK IS the freedom, and it's full of restrictions and limitations imposed by Apple. There is nothing the developers can do which the SDK doesn't allow, so take your "safety" BS and stuff it back where it came from.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Pirks on 3/3/2010 1:57:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If it was really unsafe, then why did Apple allow it in the first place?
Because it was not considered unsafe in the beginning.
quote:
The SDK IS the freedom, and it's full of restrictions and limitations imposed by Apple. There is nothing the developers can do which the SDK doesn't allow
These limitations are not enough to prevent possible creation of unsafe software or even malware.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By munky on 3/3/2010 3:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because it was not considered unsafe in the beginning.

That's because it wasn't unsafe, and it still isn't. If it was, they wouldn't have allowed it in the first place.
quote:
These limitations are not enough to prevent possible creation of unsafe software or even malware.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Even on a smartphones not under Apple's dictatorship, it's impossible to get a virus or dangerous malware.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Pirks on 3/3/2010 3:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
They considered it safe and later after complaints from users they changed their mind and decided it was not safe anymore. Pretty simple, eh?

You can easily get a dangerous fishing malware on any non-Apple phone which would pretend it's some legitimate bank/email/casino app or what not and steal your personal info like passwords/online accounts. You can't get it on iPhone though because it's locked down. Do you understand the difference now?


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By munky on 3/3/2010 3:56:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They considered it safe and later after complaints from users they changed their mind

What does "considered it safe" have to do with it actually being safe or unsafe? Cut the marketing BS already.
quote:
You can easily get a dangerous fishing malware on any non-Apple phone

You can also be a dumba$s and access a phishing website or email on your iphone and give a way all your info. That is user error, and not the fault of some security flaw in the operating system.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Pirks on 3/3/2010 4:34:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What does "considered it safe" have to do with it actually being safe or unsafe?
There's no such thing as being "actually safe" or "actually unsafe". All of these terms are subjective, whatever is safe for one guy maybe unsafe for another or for a kid or a lady. The definition of safety in App Store is driven by common sense, business model and user feedback/complaints.
quote:
That is user error, and not the fault of some security flaw in the operating system
App Store's verification process leaves less potential holes for the dumb user to exploit, this is where the benefit for the users comes from. Not even Apple can fix absolutely every potential security hole, but they at least make it safer than competitors' products.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By munky on 3/3/2010 4:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's no such thing as being "actually safe" or "actually unsafe"

Actually, there is. A virus is unsafe. A secure connection is safe. No if, and, or but about it. Your claim that it's subjective is just an excuse for Apple flip-flopping on issues like porn.

quote:
but they at least make it safer than competitors' products.

Nope, because competitor's products have security built in without dictating what's available to the user. Nothing can install itself on any smartphone unless the user allows it. But you might have a point if Apple's users are dumb and must be restricted for their own good.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Pirks on 3/3/2010 11:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
Secure connection is safe? Like secure connection to a phishing site? Wow! :)

Not only Apple users are dumb, all users are dumb in general, Apple just learned this much earlier than competitors.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By munky on 3/3/2010 11:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Secure connection is safe?

Yeah that's right. What you do with it is your own responsibility, but you can't blame the result of user stupidity on any flaw in the connection itself.

quote:
Not only Apple users are dumb, all users are dumb in general, Apple just learned this much earlier than competitors.

Speak for yourself. Anyone smart enough to see through Apple's BS is smart enough to not need their babysitting enforcements.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Pirks on 3/4/2010 10:42:40 AM , Rating: 2
Well, from the point of view of an average consumer even secure connection can be unsafe depending on what he/she is connecting to. Those people don't make any difference between the connection and the point of connection, it's all the same to them. Don't forget that most people are tech illiterate.

"Anyone smart enough" - these are minority unfortunately. Apple is not bothered with minority, they're after bigger fish - tech illiterate people with extra income. These are the sweetest spot for any consumer tech company. And there are legions of them.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By omnicronx on 3/2/2010 3:26:29 PM , Rating: 2
Neither Windows or any user distro of Linux can be run on a Mac out of the box. Apple utilizes an EFI chip, and while even windows supports EFI 1.0, Apples firmware is based on EFI 1.1.

Bootcamp was created for this very reason.

Only thing I can agree with is the platform is not really locked down, its just a side effect of using EFI and the fact that Apple only makes drivers for hardware it uses (obviously).

As hackintosh users know, pretty much any PC can install OSX, its whether or not your hardware is supported to actually make it usable.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Pirks on 3/2/2010 3:37:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Neither Windows or any user distro of Linux can be run on a Mac out of the box
Omni you forgot that Mac EFI has BIOS emulation so people install Windows on Macs OUT OF THE BOX WITHOUT BOOTCAMP for years now. Spectacular fail, Omni, hehehee :P


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By omnicronx on 3/2/2010 4:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
Out of box.. can I put a Windows DVD in the disk drive and have it install? No I can't..

Why? Because your disk partition is not setup using the MBR partition table scheme, so you have to go into OSX format the partition using MBR and thats the easy part, you then have to disk swap during the boot process at just the right time.

Then you get to make sure all your components work (which they never do) I've done this myself more than once, and it can be a pain. Its a hack at best pirks, nor does it work for everyone.

As for linux support have fun, you are on your own for drivers as there are bootcamp drivers to use. In this case only expert users have working linux installs with more than a few of the components working.

In then end Windows/Linux is just as much installable out of the box on a Mac as OSX is installable out of the box on a PC. They both require emulation and workarounds.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Pirks on 3/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By ICBM on 3/2/2010 5:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
Any of the Power series macs could run linux direct out of the box. Why do you think there are ppc linux distributions? Hold the correct key combo, and its just like installing linux on a pc.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By ICBM on 3/2/2010 5:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and in regards to drivers, they all come with the distribution. Powermac G5, pop in Fedora, and even the fancy gui effects worked on the first boot into X.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Pirks on 3/2/2010 6:13:12 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, like I said Omni is a total noob, hehe :) Although must admit his posts are pretty smart for a noob


By omnicronx on 3/3/2010 4:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'm talking post Intel here. Up until recently both Grub and Lilo required an MBR partition table, so Pirks can post all the links he wants its not going to change the fact that your shipped Intel Mac does not have it present. (part of what bootcamp does is turns it into a hybrid partition table)

You could not have seen the gui effects without using some kind of bios compatibility (graphics acceleration is not supported in nix without it), i.e you must have been using a bootloader like Lilo or Grub. As a result you must have had an MBR partition table present. (I do believe your statements, I'm just saying you pretty much must have had a MBR partition table present, i.e the setup you speak of is most likely pre-efi)

Pirks: A hybrid GPT/MBR partition table is required to install windows which is not present before you install bootcamp. Even Windows 7 cannot read GPT disks on BIOS based machines (i.e it won't even show up as a usable drive).

I've given you the technical background Pirks and I would love to be proven wrong, but it seems like you should stop blowing hot air as though you have done it before, Googling does not make you an expert.(you should also be ashamed for calling a single blogpost in which nobody even verified it as working as proof)


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Helbore on 3/3/2010 7:15:39 AM , Rating: 1
iPhones are not Macs.

<facepalm>


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/3/2010 2:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just showing that PCs are crippled locked down machines as well :P
Um...no, they aren't....

/me rolls eyes


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Pirks on 3/3/2010 3:20:11 PM , Rating: 1
They are if you are a Linux fanboy


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Marlonsm on 3/4/2010 5:05:44 PM , Rating: 1
No need to recompile the kernel. But being able to, for example, drag-and-drop any kind of file to the phone's storage would be nice.


By Aloonatic on 3/2/2010 6:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, you do realise that the iPhone and iPod Touch have sold more than a couple of units? Macs sales and market share are increasing too I think. I certainly know of a lot more people who use them.

Why? Because there has been an outbreak of boneheaad disease? Or a virus that makes people mindless Apple loving idiots?

What many people here fail to realise, and don't understsand becuase it's not an issue for us, is that people actually like that they can buy a device that has software that is easy to find, download, install and use. All without having to worry about getting a virus because it's a closed shop. Running on hardware that is restricted which leads to greater compatibility/reliability. They don't want the choice of a hundred graphics cards, or devices with screen sizes that mean they to have different versions of an OS on because some are supported, some aren't and so on.

They want something simple and easy to use. That lets them do what they want all by themselves, without having to get a "techy" to come and set it up and show them how it works.

You can call them boneheads or whatever name makes you feel better. Sure, you know far more about what hardware you can get for your money, the best bang for your buck etc, and you know where the best warez are for free, or at a good price, but you know what? Most people don't want to learn all that, and are happy to pay a little extra.

Apple realised/stumbled across this, and iTunes has just sold it's 10 gazillianth song, and the app store sold it's 1 bazillianth app...


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Bateluer on 3/2/2010 3:28:59 PM , Rating: 2
Any they have a right to buy that hardware. Apple does not have a right to sue competitors for crap they don't own.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Pirks on 3/2/2010 3:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple does not have a right to sue competitors for crap they don't own.
That's for the court to decide, not you.


RE: Hope Apple gets sued to hell
By Bateluer on 3/3/2010 9:02:03 AM , Rating: 2
No, I'm pretty sure its illegal to sue a competitor for things you don't own. By these lawsuits, Apple could file suits against Intel, AMD, ATI, and Nvidia as well for under-volting their xPUs.

Apple didn't invent the touch screen nor were they the first to use one on a product. Apple didn't invent multi-touch technologies, nor were they the first to use a multi-touch system. Apple didn't invent the concept of CPU under volting nor were they the first to use it. Therefore, they have zero rights to sue a another entity over it. The court system needs to throw this out asap, slap Apple with a hefty penalty fine to serve as an example of wasting the courts time and taxpayer money, and levy a personal admonishment against Jobs for his idiocy.


By damianrobertjones on 3/3/2010 3:56:49 AM , Rating: 1
No. People want 'the shiny' above all and to fit in. The adverts basically stated that if you use a pc, they you're sad. That transports over to the phone.

On holiday I had my HD2 with me and a waiter walked past, then stopped to ask me, "Is that an iPhone?" I replied that it wasn't an iPhone and he walked off.

Shiny over substance. Even my girlfriend has an iPhone.. agghh.. I couldn't believe she bought it after everything I've said. One month on, she now agrees that it's a pile of pap, tied to iTunes with a signal quality that's sub-par. Missed calls, late texts etc.

Apple wins, get's the money, but it can't go on forever


In other news...
By AbsShek on 3/2/2010 11:35:11 AM , Rating: 5
Apple sues God... Attempts to patent life...




RE: In other news...
By waykizool on 3/2/2010 11:43:14 AM , Rating: 5
That would be iLife


RE: In other news...
By lightfoot on 3/2/2010 12:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
Apple already sued God for infringing on iLife. God failed to appear in court, so Apple won.


RE: In other news...
By EasyC on 3/2/2010 12:22:22 PM , Rating: 3
What you didn't hear about was Apple's follow-up suit.

They are the authors of the Bible since Jobs is the first Messiah.


RE: In other news...
By EasyC on 3/2/2010 12:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
suing... Touchpad deletions > me.


RE: In other news...
By amanojaku on 3/2/2010 12:55:29 PM , Rating: 5
That makes sense.

1) One the first day Jobs created the Appleon and the RDF and said "Let there be iLife"

2) On the second day Jobs cooled the waters to create the oceans, which is how he obtained his never-ending supply of hot air

3) On the third day Jobs created the surface of the Earth. Not one to be satisfied with symmetry, Jobs created a lopsided, but funky looking, place for cultures to fight for or against until the end of time.

4) Now that the oceans and land were separated from the sky Jobs felt it was necessary to keep time. Thus the creation of an annual Macworld conference, monthly Macworld magazine, and daily OS crashes.

5) On the fifth day Jobs created a crap load of quirky products like the Newton and AppleTV and said "be fruitful and increase in number and fill the desks in the cubicles, and let the Macs increase on the 'net." Just one problem...

6) On the sixth day Jobs realized customers were necessary, and created fanatics.

7) On the seventh day Jobs looked back at all he created, got cramps and said "Where's my iPad?"


RE: In other news...
By mooncancook on 3/3/2010 2:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
Then Jobs created a garden, and put two fanatic hippies in it. Jobs planted an Apple tree in the middle of the garden, and he called it the Tree of Patent.


RE: In other news...
By maverick85wd on 3/6/2010 11:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
that's a 6 buddy!


Apple hatred
By DEredita on 3/2/2010 12:14:06 PM , Rating: 5
Apple hatred is very very well deserved with all of the evil crap coming out of that company. Child labor, hiring hardware manufacturers who murder and beat their employees in China, suing everyone they can for anything, trying to kill off eBooks, trying to kill off the netbooks (iPad, please), holding their buyers back with outdated hardware technology and severely underpowered graphics, getting their users all to adhere to Firewire and then killing firewire (after you have all your crap backed up on a firewire drive and you buy a new mac and surprise, no firewire), overcharging the holy hell out of their customers for 1+ year old antiquated discontinued Intel hardware, and the list goes on and on...

But hey you don't have to worry about viruses, and they will make sure you don't use flash, because, you know, HTML5 in some nutcases mind has decided this was the defacto standard now, sorry if everyone else missed that fact.




RE: Apple hatred
By The0ne on 3/2/2010 12:26:14 PM , Rating: 5
With so much going on with Apple I'm still baffled by the millions of devoted consumers. Someone should do a study on this behavior, or is it too simple of a conclusion to draw already? In any case, I'm both shocked in awe and lol.


RE: Apple hatred
By DEredita on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Apple hatred
By Chocobollz on 3/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: Apple hatred
By Pirks on 3/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: Apple hatred
By ICBM on 3/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: Apple hatred
By afkrotch on 3/4/2010 12:50:42 AM , Rating: 2
Think these ppl need to actually look in their comps more and notice that they are all using the same parts.


RE: Apple hatred
By Pirks on 3/4/2010 10:48:46 AM , Rating: 1
Lexus and Toyota use mostly the same parts but the experience is different.


RE: Apple hatred
By mooncancook on 3/3/2010 2:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
It's called cultic behavior. Cultists will blindly follow their cult leader.


RE: Apple hatred
By Pirks on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Apple hatred
By DEredita on 3/2/2010 12:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
The iPad is not going to make even a dent to netbook sales, but Apple seems to be trying to make everyone believe that the iPad is the future, and will replace netbooks.

Apple's fruitless efforts in trying to convince buyers and investors that the iPad will replace the netbooks, is similar to the fruitless efforts of NY's Governor Paterson, who is trying to convince everyone that he will not be forced to resign. LOL


RE: Apple hatred
By Pirks on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Apple hatred
By kmmatney on 3/2/2010 1:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not so sure at $499, but at $299 I would certainly buy the iPad over any netbook. You are most likely not going to do serious work on either device, so might as well get the device which starts up quicker and is easier to use.


RE: Apple hatred
By Pirks on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Apple hatred
By DEredita on 3/2/2010 2:16:05 PM , Rating: 2
Just what everyone wants, another monthly bill.


RE: Apple hatred
By Pirks on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Apple hatred
By Helbore on 3/3/2010 7:19:24 AM , Rating: 1
We gotta imagine it, because that's not what Apple are providing.

"But they might do eventually," you may say. Well so might anyone else. Apple might decide to put full OSX on iPad v2. They might decide to put a toaster in it, too. But until they do, it's just idle speculation.


RE: Apple hatred
By cfaalm on 3/2/2010 3:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
Now you sound like Steve Ballmer:
quote:
The iPad is not going to make even a dent to netbook sales


RE: Apple hatred
By Chocobollz on 3/2/2010 3:29:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Troll on man! Do it!

We don't have to because you already did it.


RE: Apple hatred
By Beno on 3/2/2010 1:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
if others had their marketing skills, i dont think they would reach that level.


Nexus one is better than the Icrap.
By greylica on 3/2/2010 11:48:11 AM , Rating: 3
Except for those patents, that tries to block some functionalities, Phone By Phone, Nexus one is far better than the Iphone, not only because of it's hardware...
The software is very good, stable, the phone is unlocked, there is tethering apps, and it connects to near every wireless network.
They are suing for multitouch gesture locking options ?
Use a double icon, pressed with two fingers, patent those kind of ''new'' gestures as free (killing those idioctic practices, from Apple, Microsoft or any other enterprise that tries to stop innovation), and continue using free software, let them all die with their unused patents...
Every hype has it's end...
Iphone will got his end too...




RE: Nexus one is better than the Icrap.
By HelToupee on 3/2/2010 11:53:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Phone By Phone, Nexus one is far better than the Iphone


... and as soon as I get a reliable 3G signal I'm gonna show you oh wait crap, it rebooted again ...


By greylica on 3/2/2010 12:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
Once I have a Nokia N95 with the same problem, it was hardware and software related...
Until now, no problem with Nexus one here.


By dguy6789 on 3/2/2010 8:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, my Nexus One has never crashed and has always been getting 3G signal since the day I bought it.


By piroroadkill on 3/3/2010 3:54:38 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that 3G performance is a little sketchy on Android, but my magic has been up for 28 days and 16 hours...


By nafhan on 3/2/2010 12:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
Patenting multitouch gestures is right up there with patenting yoga positions, but Hey! That's allowed, too...


What a load of bull....
By Amiga500 on 3/2/2010 11:34:31 AM , Rating: 4
Whoever invented the "on" switch should sue Apple for being idiots.




RE: What a load of bull....
By kroker on 3/2/2010 12:46:39 PM , Rating: 5
Lets add: phone with a color screen, phone with speaker for playing music, phone with rechargeable battery, icon to display battery charge, icon to display signal strength etc. Sound ridiculous? I think they sound a lot less ridiculous than multitouch, object-oriented OS and matrix-layout icons... oh, by the way, what are they talking about? My Sony Ericssons and Nokias have had matrix-layout icons for years in the menu. And I'm not really sure, but wasn't Symbian an object-oriented OS?

As we see, the only reason Apple is an innovator is because it hinders others from innovating.


It's all part of the game
By bigboxes on 3/2/2010 1:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't Apple try the same thing with Palm? Palm told them to take a hike (with lawyers in tow). Also, didn't Nokia patent the "iPhone" name? I believe they dropped the lawsuit. This is a frivolous lawsuit that is being used to unfairly stifle competition. Yeah, Apple has done acquired some useful patents, but regulating voltage and a touch screen is not one of them. Nice try.




RE: It's all part of the game
By croc on 3/2/2010 7:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
Cisco owned the iPhone trademark. There was some kind of settlement made by apple to use that name, but to my knowledge it was never made public. I still have a Cisco iPhone, and it still works....


RE: It's all part of the game
By neurosisxeno on 3/8/2010 10:27:08 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.macnn.com/articles/10/01/20/multiple.de...

Let's not forget the time they accidentally developed and announced a device named after a pre-existing device without the rights to the name...

Oh wait...


RE: It's all part of the game
By Smilin on 3/8/2010 2:36:51 PM , Rating: 2
Lets also not forget that Macintosh itself was a trademark violation.


Dont like this one bit
By Vagisil on 3/2/2010 11:30:55 AM , Rating: 2
The Mobile industry has often been about licensing technologies it worked fairly well, there have been lawsuits patent disputes before i know.

But why when apple charges in do they threaten the whole industry with lawsuits for anything contained in their own phone knowing that they cannot enforce most of their patents?

Personally id like to see the iPhone completely reversed and everyone file suit at the same time.




RE: Dont like this one bit
By msheredy on 3/2/10, Rating: -1