You don't understand how copyright, patent law, or fiduciary duty to shareholders works or the legal repercussions if action is not taken.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple lawyers with too much spare time...
- Thread starter Celf
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You don't understand how copyright, patent law, or fiduciary duty to shareholders works or the legal repercussions if action is not taken.
That video is what Samsung used to get Apple patent thrown out in the Netherlands courts. The video is the video of the device. Chances are that same device will be used any time Apple try to use slide to unlock as a patent and pointed out that it should never of been granted.
http://www.androidcentral.com/apple...en-though-it-existed-2-years-they-invented-it
I'm not saying it isn't, I'm saying that the video doesn't represent the patent as presented to the USPTO.
Yes, of course. I think what people take issue with is that Apple didn't invent slide to unlock.
Then if that company can protect it, they have every right to do it. Apple is not above patent law. I take issue with people saying how greedy/sue happy/yatta yatta Apple is and ignore it if it's about Google and Android.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Apple should not have been granted the patent because it's not their invention. I know that's not how it works, but for them to be given a patent to something they stole in the first place is wholly unfair in my opinion (not that it matters).
Ah, good question. It was because it was such an obvious addition.
As some might recall, I first posted about the 2002 NeoNode slide-to-unlock back in early 2010. Both then, and a few months later when I presented a history of touch unlock, I commented how obvious it was to add a visible helper object.
The Netherlands judge said almost exactly the same thing when he compared the Neonode to the iPhone:
isnt a trademark or copyright or patent infringement classed as stealing ?
here what Steve Jobs said about it : good artists copy , great artists steal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=CW0DUg63lqU
so that means if Apple does it its a great thing , if others do it its a crime
and ok you could unlock a phone differently , maybe one should get a patent for that method : you need to press the volume button and powerbutton at the same time ,while you quiclkly tap ten times the display and then a numberpad appears and you must enter a 125 digit code , ok you would have a missed call my then , but it wont infringe a Apple patent
just asking myself why i never got the idea of getting the wheel patented , i could be rich by now only by suing people for building wheels round the others would need to build square wheels then .
Because like Apple you dont need to be the first with the idea , you need to be the first with the patent number
here what Steve Jobs said about it : good artists copy , great artists steal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=CW0DUg63lqU
so that means if Apple does it its a great thing , if others do it its a crime
and ok you could unlock a phone differently , maybe one should get a patent for that method : you need to press the volume button and powerbutton at the same time ,while you quiclkly tap ten times the display and then a numberpad appears and you must enter a 125 digit code , ok you would have a missed call my then , but it wont infringe a Apple patent
just asking myself why i never got the idea of getting the wheel patented , i could be rich by now only by suing people for building wheels round
the others would need to build square wheels then .Because like Apple you dont need to be the first with the idea , you need to be the first with the patent number
Last edited:
Nope. The original holder of IP is not deprived of it when someone infringes on it, so it's not stealing. It's infringement. If it was stealing, they would call it theft.
so that means if Apple does it its a great thing , if others do it its a crime
Copyright infringement can be criminal in the US.
and ok you could unlock a phone differently , maybe one should get a patent for that method : you need to press the volume button and powerbutton at the same time ,while you quiclkly tap ten times the display and then a numberpad appears and you must enter a 125 digit code , ok you would have a missed call my then , but it wont infringe a Apple patent
Why such a convulted method ? Just use a non-infringe "slide to unlock" method as implemented by Android, WP7, webOS and others. Apple's patent is very precise.
that was only exaggerating things a bit , , to the consumer it really does not matter if you slide to unlock from left to right or from right to left or from top to bottom or from bottom to top or do you chose your phone because it unlocks in a certain manner , most choose their phones for important to them features or price
and say for example Samsung or HTC wont sell more phones or Apple less if they would unlock the same way , so whats all the fuss about patenting even the simplest of things
What fuss ? No one has made any fuss since again, Apple's patent is very precise contrary to what the sensationalistic media would have you believe. And in some jurisdictions, it's not even valid.
And patenting the simplest of things is wrong, it prevents others from profiting from innovation that makes our lives simpler. That's why patents need to be for non-obvious and non-existing things. In the case of slide to unlock, while there is no prior art directly mimicking what Apple has patented, another court has deemed it too obvious to warrant a patent based on prior art that does implement parts of the patent.
I doubt that Apple will win if they go to court. This trademark/patent stuff is getting out of hand...
That's kinda the primary goal of any business. Eliminate the competition and become the sole supplier. Ideally, you don't want any competition to exist.
Obviously, your view of patents is more than a little obtuse (patents exist for a good reason - ask any software developer intent on making a living), but your comment is interesting, in that a business ideally wants to do anything in its power, within financial and legal allowances, to eliminate or otherwise hinder competitors. This sort of activity is in fact, perfectly normal, as long as it takes place within the legal framework that is there to address it.
yes i know how patenting works , and i understand the reason why companies patent everything (profit) , but i see it from another point , if only one has the patent , then you rely totally on that one to eventually sort out a bug or just make it better or cheaper(the later is unlikely).
todays patents make it nearly impossible for other companies or inventors to materialize a idea because they need to waste first thousands of hours and money to find out if their idea does not infringe any other patent in some even not related way registered by somebody else somewhere in that world , so in my view patents hinder progress of technology and as it kills competition too you rely on that one company to dictate the price which is bad for the consumer
hahahahahahahahahahaha
Really? Apple? Just because they have an apple fruit in their logo? I thought you were classier than that.
At least, when Sony years back had a similar tiff with a restaurant was because the owner was also using the word 'Sony' in her restaurant name. Even though Sony was the name of the owner, which perhaps did bring out confusion to some people.