Willy Wonka Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Anti-trust laws, patent laws, and the like, really need to go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_Bleed_B&G Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 [quote name='Drew_Fl']Apple is already in the early stages of making their own maps program (they acquired a company recently for this). Youtube and Gmail are websites...[/QUOTE] sure they are website, but aren't the apps used to access the website made by Google? What if they said no more "Google" apps on your apple products. If you want to reach these websites, I guess they'll just have to do so the old fashion way by typing [url]www.youtube.com[/url], etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Anti-trust laws, patent laws, and the like, really need to go away. Don't agree with this since it is way too broad and would be harmful but I agree with PokerPacker and Vilandil Tasardur. Some of these IP patents are just getting beyond ridiculous. Highlighting something? Clicking a link? Seriously? Its just stupid at this point. I am fine with companies protecting the rights to their innovations and products. They should be able to and have a right to. But there is a line that has been crossed to where companies (like Apple) are patenting anything and everything possible to the point where winning their lawsuits would do nothing but let them completely corner a market and make sure further innovation and improvements on ideas don't happen (by other companies and then, by extension of that, themselves...who needs to truly innovate when you have a market completely cornered?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew_Fl Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 [quote name='I_Bleed_B&G']sure they are website, but aren't the apps used to access the website made by Google? What if they said no more "Google" apps on your apple products. If you want to reach these websites, I guess they'll just have to do so the old fashion way by typing [url]www.youtube.com[/url], etc...[/QUOTE] The problem is that Gmail uses the Pop, Imap, and exchange interfaces which can be accessed from almost anything, including the Apple mail.app on phones and such. I don't know enough about it to know if Google could discriminate against Apple devices. The problem with google blocking youtube is money....Google get's most if not all their revenue from ads (on google search, gmail, youtube, etc...) If they block the hundreds of millions of Apple devices, they are hurting themselves more than they are hurting Apple. Even if a large portion jumped ship to Android, Google doesn't make anywhere close to the same amount of revenue or profit per device that Apple does. They don't have much leverage in this specific fight.[COLOR="Gold"] [SIZE=1]---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 07:52 PM ----------[/SIZE] [/COLOR]Google has been a company that has thrived on making their services available as many places as possible. If they change that, it will definitely hurt them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 This. No one is arguing that google violated the patents for making a phone number a clickable link that would enable your phone's call feature. What we ARE arguing is whether or not that patent should have been given in the first place. In order to patent something it has to be innovative, creative, and a deviation from the expected next step. I would argue that if I handed a smartphone to 9/10 grade school children and showed them an email with a phone number, they would try to click it to dial it. That is a feature that I would simply "expect" to be available, not something that I would consider innovative.It seems to me as though Apple has over patented the hell out of stuff. You can patent unique technology that makes touch screens faster/clearer/more sensitive. You can't patent "touch screens" and then say that no one else can ever make a touch screen phone.... Smartphones have been out a lot longer than the iPhone. Why did it take Jobs to get it working? That's his genius. Making something so easy it feels like it should have always been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 It seems to me as though Apple has over patented the hell out of stuff. You can patent unique technology that makes touch screens faster/clearer/more sensitive. You can't patent "touch screens" and then say that no one else can ever make a touch screen phone.... Patenting this stuff by computer companies isn't unique to Apple. This is just in the phone business, same applies to computers. http://9to5mac.com/2011/08/18/who-has-the-most-patents-apple-sues-despite-smaller-patent-portfolio/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilandil Tasardur Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Fair enough. I'll willingly admit that I don't know enough of the industry to weigh in on that. I guess I more meant "the article is arguing that..." If this is par for the course in the industry, well then I'm not sure. I still don't like it, but I guess it's more excusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frostyj Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I could have sworn my Palm Treo 650 could dial a number from a web page, text or email. And that was back in '05. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebornempowered Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Stupid double post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willy Wonka Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Don't agree with this since it is way too broad and would be harmful but I agree with PokerPacker and Vilandil Tasardur. Some of these IP patents are just getting beyond ridiculous. Highlighting something? Clicking a link? Seriously? Its just stupid at this point. I am fine with companies protecting the rights to their innovations and products. They should be able to and have a right to. But there is a line that has been crossed to where companies (like Apple) are patenting anything and everything possible to the point where winning their lawsuits would do nothing but let them completely corner a market and make sure further innovation and improvements on ideas don't happen (by other companies and then, by extension of that, themselves...who needs to truly innovate when you have a market completely cornered?) The laws themselves are what is harmful to competition and consumers. It's a way for the state to pick winners and losers in the market. Voluntary exchange is what should be determining this, not the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebornempowered Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I could have sworn my Palm Treo 650 could dial a number from a web page, text or email. And that was back in '05. That may be true but did they patent it? I wouldn't be surprised if Apple would try to patent lifting your leg to pass gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_Bleed_B&G Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I could have sworn my Palm Treo 650 could dial a number from a web page, text or email. And that was back in '05. I believe you might be correct. I also had the 650 and I seem to recall you could dial a number from those same locations. Apple copies just as much as anyone else. They just patent anything and everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 does anyone have a link to the patents in question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 does anyone have a link to the patents in question? http://www.google.com/patents/US5946647Note that the patent was filed in 1996, probably as part of work on the Macintosh operating system ... before the Palm Pilot, before Google was founded, before Apple was even thinking about an iPhone, and actually at a time when Steve Jobs had been kicked out of Apple. In related news, a judge has issued an initial determination that Motorola infringes a Microsoft patent related to synchronizing appointments with Exchange: http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/20/itc-judge-issues-initial-ruling-that-motorola-infringes-microsof/ http://www.google.com/patents/US6370566 The Microsoft patent was filed in 1998, as part of early work with Windows CE, Outlook, and Exchange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 http://www.google.com/patents/US5946647Note that the patent was filed in 1996, probably as part of work on the Macintosh operating system ... before the Palm Pilot, before Google was founded, before Apple was even thinking about an iPhone, and actually at a time when Steve Jobs had been kicked out of Apple. Well that makes more sense. On the bright side, patents last 20 years, so it should expire in 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.