You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
I find it kind of ironic that Apple/Apple supporters say "don't copy, innovate", yet their whole notification system is basically a rip-off of an existing system that's very efficient/effective (regardless if it's open-source or not patented). They basically knew their intrusive pop-up notification system was garbage and integrated the same thing into iOS as their competitor.
What happened to: "there's more than one way to do something" when it comes to notifications? Where's the innovation?
reads most threads with his pants around his ankles, especially in the Forced Induction forum.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 10,645
Thanked 2,191 Times in 1,131 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
I've always viewed it as: you're only on top of the market for a while until the rest of the world catches up to you. And IMO that's exactly what happened to Apple.
They developed the touch screen so well that they basically obsoleted their QWERTY competitors which at the time, BlackBerry was their biggest. But they can't just sit on their asses and hope nobody does the touchscreen user-experience like they can. They've had their time at the top of the mountain, and they need to keep pushing forward to remain on top; rather than sitting back and throwing a tantrum because their shit isn't the hottest techno-gadget anymore.
Again how would you feel if you put the effort, time, money and risk and while I just wait and see if what you created is successful or not. If it is seccussful I will just copy it and apply to my product without paying spending a penny in design, taking the risk, not spending time in developement and still make millions just like.
Every major companies out there will try to protect their inventions, product, ideas becasue THEY spend millions into it so why should the average joe copy it for free?
Let's put it in simple terms. You did all the research, spend hours working on a project and I just copy the exact same thing project you did. Will you be happy that I did it? Will you not say something? Please say you are 100% ok with it so I can tell your co-workers that it is ok for them to copy your ideas.
What hasn't Killed me, has made me more tolerant of RS!
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 181
Thanked 109 Times in 44 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp
Again how would you feel if you put the effort, time, money and risk and while I just wait and see if what you created is successful or not. If it is seccussful I will just copy it and apply to my product without paying spending a penny in design, taking the risk, not spending time in developement and still make millions just like.
Every major companies out there will try to protect their inventions, product, ideas becasue THEY spend millions into it so why should the average joe copy it for free?
Let's put it in simple terms. You did all the research, spend hours working on a project and I just copy the exact same thing project you did. Will you be happy that I did it? Will you not say something? Please say you are 100% ok with it so I can tell your co-workers that it is ok for them to copy your ideas.
That's the problem. Apple copied from someone else. There`s nothing "original" in a Apple iPhone. It is a combination of previous technologies put together in a shiny new package. Even the form factor is not original. They deserve to get ripped off if that's how they see it.
Again how would you feel if you put the effort, time, money and risk and while I just wait and see if what you created is successful or not. If it is seccussful I will just copy it and apply to my product without paying spending a penny in design, taking the risk, not spending time in developement and still make millions just like.
Every major companies out there will try to protect their inventions, product, ideas becasue THEY spend millions into it so why should the average joe copy it for free?
Let's put it in simple terms. You did all the research, spend hours working on a project and I just copy the exact same thing project you did. Will you be happy that I did it? Will you not say something? Please say you are 100% ok with it so I can tell your co-workers that it is ok for them to copy your ideas.
Let's also be honest and say that in the first five years of that product being sold you have reaped record profits not only from that product, but also from the buzz that has been generated by that and complementary products (ipad, iTunes, OSX, etc etc) and that your company has travelled from a mediocre niche company to the company with the largest market cap in the world.
And that you feel you haven't been adequately rewarded yet.
Come to think of it, why can iOS5 swipe from top to reveal notifications panel (a feature previously Android). Did Google not patent that feature therefore Apple could use it?
Can't sue/license because Google's patent is not officially approved yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidTurbo
^Relevant jpg from NSFW forum
Good guy Motorola. Of all the examples to use. C'mon, they have 17000 patents for a reason! They didn't spend all that time and resources filing just so they could look at it.
Other companies have clamshell patents just as many other companies have patents for rectangles with rounded corners. If Motorola could have patented a general form factor, they would have had a field day.
I was going to list the Apple acquisitions in my original post, but I left them out just to see how long before someone shows companies Apple bought and tries to imply they are similar. It's not pot meet kettle. It's thimble (Apple) meets bucket (Google).
Apple has bought 38 companies over 24 years for a rate of 1.6 companies/year. Google has bought 116 companies in 11 years for a rate of 10.5/year.
Apple has spent around $2.5 billion for those 38 acquisitions. Google has spent around $22 billion for its 116 companies. These are only reported purchase prices. Apple has 21 companies where no purchase price is listed. Google has 79 companies where no purchase price is listed.
In terms of R&D spending, the entire R&D budget of Google since it was formed is still far below what they've spent of acquisitions.
In the last 5 years only, Apple has spent 3 times as much on R&D as they have spent on acquisitions in their entire history.
You want to continue further down this road?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaPoola
That's the problem. Apple copied from someone else. There`s nothing "original" in a Apple iPhone. It is a combination of previous technologies put together in a shiny new package. Even the form factor is not original. They deserve to get ripped off if that's how they see it.
Every modern electronic device will have ideas that are owned by someone else and licensed, some ideas that are public domain and some that are unique to the company. Nothing in tech is as black & white as you claim.
Edit: Just realized I wasted time responding to a new account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goo3
Can't sue/license because Google's patent is not officially approved yet.
Good guy Motorola. Of all the examples to use. C'mon, they have 17000 patents for a reason! They didn't spend all that time and resources filing just so they could look at it.
Other companies have clamshell patents just as many other companies have patents for rectangles with rounded corners. If Motorola could have patented a general form factor, they would have had a field day.
People keep forgetting what Motorola has done:
They admitted they were going to sue all the other Android OEM's to generate revenue. This is one of the main reasons Google bought them. If an outsider (Apple or Microsoft) sues Android then it's easy to put some spin on what's happening. Having an Android OEM sue another Android OEM would not look good for "the family business".
And then there's the licensing issue. This sums it up:
Apple: We're building a cell phone and we need base band chips.
Moto/Sams: OK, we can license it to you.
Apple: What do you think is reasonable?
Moto/Sams: How about $0.50 per phone?
Apple: Sure, that's fine. **shakes hands and walks away**
Sams: Don't you think that's a little cheap?
Moto: **snickers** They're going to fail anyway. At least we'll make enough back to cover the costs to have the lawyers write up the license. And we look like the good guys for giving them a good deal.
Sams: Haha. Good point.
years later.....
Sams: Damn, Apple is selling gazillions of phones and we're only making $0.50 per phone.
Moto: Agreed. We need to be getting more of that gravy train.
Sams: OK. I'll try to double-dip Apple by going around Qualcomm and getting money from Apple directly.
Moto: Good idea. I'll revoke licenses from companies selling baseband chips to Apple and then turn around and sue them directly for more money.
reads most threads with his pants around his ankles, especially in the Forced Induction forum.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 10,645
Thanked 2,191 Times in 1,131 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaPoola
That's the problem. Apple copied from someone else. There`s nothing "original" in a Apple iPhone. It is a combination of previous technologies put together in a shiny new package. Even the form factor is not original. They deserve to get ripped off if that's how they see it.
And you think is 100% fine for Moto/Samsung to double dip on selling Apple micro chips and those who try to sell to apple have their liscense revoke by Moto/Samsung so Apple have to pay more to Moto/Samsung.
Since you said Apple copied from someone else but who patent the idea? The company/person apple is copying is from which country are they from? That that company/person sue apple for it? Do you have actual prof that this company/person have the patent before Apple did? The patent apple have is for United states so it only applies to USA. It is perfectly legal in another country.
This is how the business world works. Who patent/claim copyright first gets the first dip.
The verdict in the recent Apple-Samsung patent trial in the US has sent shockwaves through the tech industry.
The jury ruled that Apple be awarded $1.05bn (£665m) after its South Korean rival infringed several of its software technologies and designs
Samsung's own claims of patent breaches were rejected.
The decisions have been picked over at length by both the media and public. Questions have been asked: Did the jury spend enough time considering the facts? Was a Californian jury inherently biased? And, based on the evidence, was the verdict wrong?
Velvin Hogan was the foreman in the jury. He is chief technology officer at Multicast Labs, which develops video technology for the web, and was familiar with the US patent system before the trial.
Velvin Hogan said his familiarity with the US patent system helped the jury reach its verdict so quickly
He spoke to the BBC to address concerns he had about some of the reports, and asked that it be known that he had not been paid for this or any other interview.
What follows is an edited version of the conversation. A full transcript is also available:
What was the crucial bit of evidence that convinced you to give a verdict that was so decisive in Apple's favour rather than Samsung's?
One of the most decisive pieces of evidence was reading the minutes for myself of a meeting that was held at a very high level between Google executives and Samsung executives.
It was for a tablet and Google was concerned that for the sake of their operating system that the look and feel and the methodology that they [Samsung] were using to create their tablet was getting too close to what Apple was doing.
And in the memo themselves - remember this was minutes - they stated that Google demanded that they back away from that design.
And later there was a follow-up memo among themselves, these executives, and in black and white it says: we elect to not pass this information down to the divisions that were actually involved in the design.
So, from the sake of the engineers they went merrily along continuing their design not given any orders to back away.
They knew nothing of that meeting. To me that kind of raised a light bulb in my head that when I got in the jury room I wanted to read the minutes of that meeting myself.
When we went into deliberation in the jury room we not only had all the physical evidence of everything that was presented, but we also had sealed source code in its entirety from both sides, we actually had the memos that were talked about in the trial... and there was a piece of evidence after a piece of evidence that just clearly stacked up.
The jury deliberated for 21 hours before reaching its verdict
A lot has been made about the original interview you gave to Reuters in which you said you wanted to make the award sufficiently high to be painful to Samsung, but not unreasonable. There has been concern this might have be prejudicial and the awards should have been based on the facts alone.
I have tried to make it clear that it wasn't an attempt [to take] a punitive standpoint. And it wasn't necessarily focused at Samsung - that is where it had been taken out of context.
The jurors wanted to send a message to the industry at large that no matter who you are - whether you are Apple, whether you are Samsung, or anybody - if you wilfully take the risk to cross the line and start infringing and you get caught, and again I emphasise wilfully, you need to be prepared to pay the cost for that.
Apple presented this chart as evidence that Samsung had changed its approach after the iPhone had been unveiled
There were two issues, looking at Apple's case: whether Samsung had infringed their patents and whether the patents were valid. Why weren't you convinced by Samsung's arguments that Apple's patents were invalid since prior art existed showing similar ideas?
Prior art was considered.
But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate Apple's patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable.
And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error.
So the point being, at [a bird's eye-view from] the 40,000 foot-level, even though the outcome of the two seemed similar, the internal methodology of how you got there was entirely different. One could not be exchanged for the other.
And that is the thing that most people at large do not understand about the legal system. And as a result of that you have heard a lot of hype in the media about did we turn our back on prior art.............
.....
Last edited by Graeme S; 08-31-2012 at 12:38 PM.
Reason: URL fixed.
What hasn't Killed me, has made me more tolerant of RS!
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 181
Thanked 109 Times in 44 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp
And you think is 100% fine for Moto/Samsung to double dip on selling Apple micro chips and those who try to sell to apple have their liscense revoke by Moto/Samsung so Apple have to pay more to Moto/Samsung.
Since you said Apple copied from someone else but who patent the idea? The company/person apple is copying is from which country are they from? That that company/person sue apple for it? Do you have actual prof that this company/person have the patent before Apple did? The patent apple have is for United states so it only applies to USA. It is perfectly legal in another country.
This is how the business world works. Who patent/claim copyright first gets the first dip.
The patent law in the States is a fucking joke so don't even bother bringing that up. Prime example is multi touch. Apple patents it like it's their idea although it's been around for decades?
Also, that part about selling micro chips to Apple, yes that is totally fair. It's business. But I'm not sure why you are bringing that up in this discussion?
The patent law in the States is a fucking joke so don't even bother bringing that up. Prime example is multi touch. Apple patents it like it's their idea although it's been around for decades?
Also, that part about selling micro chips to Apple, yes that is totally fair. It's business. But I'm not sure why you are bringing that up in this discussion?
Unfortunately, the system (which pretty much everyone acknowledges is broken) is not up for debate. The merits of the case are.
Those two are very tightly intertwined and will hopefully interact in some meaningful way in the future...
But nothing major is going to change at all until after the American Election.
TLDR long winded post from Apple developer / fanboy / troll.
What app you develop by the way, I'm really curious.
Funny how someone with 6 posts knows my history. So who were you before you got banned and had to create a new account?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaPoola
The patent law in the States is a fucking joke so don't even bother bringing that up. Prime example is multi touch. Apple patents it like it's their idea although it's been around for decades?
Also, that part about selling micro chips to Apple, yes that is totally fair. It's business. But I'm not sure why you are bringing that up in this discussion?
The patent system is fine. Lomac mentioned I'm old, and he's right. But is everyone else in this thread so young they don't anything about the history of computing?
These lawsuits have been going on forever. And everytime a new one comes up there's always someone whining with the same 3 excuses Samsung gave (maybe there's a "loser's playbook" where they all get their official statements from). Consumers lose with fewer choices, higher prices and less innovation.
Here we are 30+ years after the first PC's came out (and umpteen lawsuits later) and where do we stand?
- If I want a smaller (4GB) USB flash drive, after all the patent holders are finished with their grubby fingers getting royalties I'm forced to pay a whopping $2.99-$3.99.
- Hard drives have barely increased in capacity and if I want a 1TB drive I might have to pay close to $100 (gasp).
- HD TV's that used to cost $10,000 can be had for $499. The $499 TV will have a better picture and more options than the $10K one did.
- I bought a "high-end" point and shoot camera for $1,200 when I moved to Vancouver that's not even as good as the camera in my iPhone.
- I once paid $9,000 for a fully-loaded 80386 PC in the late 80's. A processor with 300,000 transistors that ran at 33 MHz. Today Intel has processors with over a billion transistors (for the math challenged, that's 3,000 times as many as my 80386 had) and are 1,000-3,000 times faster than the 80386. That's a remarkable achievement in only 20 years.
I could go on but you should get the point. There has been an incredible amount of innovation in the tech sector over the years resulting in consumer products that are vastly superior (and much cheaper) than products from only a few years ago. And there's no signs of it ever slowing down.
And all this "innovation" took place with the "crappy" patent system we have and all the lawsuits that were supposed to stop it.
So you'll have to excuse me if I don't fall for the "boy who cried wolf" when I've heard it countless times over the years.
I was going to list the Apple acquisitions in my original post, but I left them out just to see how long before someone shows companies Apple bought and tries to imply they are similar. It's not pot meet kettle. It's thimble (Apple) meets bucket (Google).
Apple has bought 38 companies over 24 years for a rate of 1.6 companies/year. Google has bought 116 companies in 11 years for a rate of 10.5/year.
Apple has spent around $2.5 billion for those 38 acquisitions. Google has spent around $22 billion for its 116 companies. These are only reported purchase prices. Apple has 21 companies where no purchase price is listed. Google has 79 companies where no purchase price is listed.
In terms of R&D spending, the entire R&D budget of Google since it was formed is still far below what they've spent of acquisitions.
In the last 5 years only, Apple has spent 3 times as much on R&D as they have spent on acquisitions in their entire history.
You want to continue further down this road?
Let's see some sources to back up your R&D claims. I can make figures up like that all day too. Apple spends 5 times more on lawyer fees than Google does on R&D; see it's real easy.
You thought no one would call you out on it, that's why you didn't include it.
You're taking lifetime stats to include times when Apple wasn't even relevant. That's a little skewed isn't it?
If you take the timeline of when Apple has relevant in technology, that's when the bought NeXT, before that they were on their death bed only to be rescue by Microsoft. That was in 1997 for both events.
Counting from 1997 to now (15 years), that's 33 companies that's 2.2 companies a year. The main thing, how many of those purchases are the core of their enterprise? Mac OS X, iTunes, multitouch, iCloud, physical processors, Maps, Final Cut, Siri, and so on and so on.
[B]They don't invent shit, they buy companies with ready products and market the shit out of them. ie Siri [B]
Now to the Google argument, if you look at the list it's an aggregate of companies to create their vision of a technology. ie Google+. If you round up all the purchases and the resulting Google product, it would be equivalent to Apple's purchases and their resulting product.
I know you're brand loyal (Apple, VW, Audi, etc), but it's good to take off those blinders sometimes. Not all the companies you're loyal to are doing the right/best things, be less of a homer.
disclaimer: I have an iPad 3, iTouch, iPhone 4S(work), Nexus S. I have more Apple products than Google. I hate working on my 4S, OS feels dated compared to the Android but the battery life is awesome.
The patent law in the States is a fucking joke so don't even bother bringing that up. Prime example is multi touch. Apple patents it like it's their idea although it's been around for decades?
Also, that part about selling micro chips to Apple, yes that is totally fair. It's business. But I'm not sure why you are bringing that up in this discussion?
Who are the morons that approved apples patents, holy fuck are they retarded, patents are awarded way too easily these days, rounded cOrners for phones, who the fuck wants corners with no edges? Multi touch pinch zoom? This shiet is soo standard. How come some of googled patents didnt get approved if some o this basic stuff got approved. This thing is becoming a fcking joke.
Let's see some sources to back up your R&D claims. I can make figures up like that all day too. Apple spends 5 times more on lawyer fees than Google does on R&D; see it's real easy.
You thought no one would call you out on it, that's why you didn't include it.
You're taking lifetime stats to include times when Apple wasn't even relevant. That's a little skewed isn't it?
Sorry, I was wrong. My original statement was:
- In the last 5 years Apple has spent 3 times as much on R&D as acquisitions.
After checking my numbers I should have said:
- In the last 4.5 years Apple has spent 3.2 times as much on R&D as acquisitions.
Now see what happens when you call someone out? Things actually look better for my argument and worse for yours. Here is my source for R&D spending for Apple over the years. The most recent 2 quarters aren't on the list, but they are available. Apple spent $758 million Q1-2012 and appx $660 millions Q4-2011.
How is taking lifetime stats skewed when I compared Apple's last 5 years of R&D to their entire history of acquisitions? But I'll concede defeat. 10.5 per year for Google vs 2.2 for Apple (instead of my original 1.6 lifetime) makes such a huge difference.
As for Google, sometime next year their R&D spending should finally catch up with acquisitions (if they don't buy any more companies). This is because Google has had massive R&D increases in recent years. In 2005 they spent $600 million. Last year it was around $5.2 billion and this year should top $6 billion.
As a percentage of revenue spent on R&D Google is 12-13% whereas Apple is somewhere around 2.5%.
For a comparison Microsoft will spend around $9 billion this year and leads all tech companies with 146 acquisitions. However, MS also spends huge $$$ on R&D so they are kind of a mix.
Now where are your numbers that back up your claim Apple spends 5 times as much on lawyers? Oh yeah, you don't have any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nah
Now to the Google argument, if you look at the list it's an aggregate of companies to create their vision of a technology. ie Google+. If you round up all the purchases and the resulting Google product, it would be equivalent to Apple's purchases and their resulting product.
I never claimed Apple didn't buy companies and integrate their technology into Apple products. Of course they do - what other reason would there be to buy a tech company?
My original point still stands. Google spends more on acquisitions than R&D, Apple spends more on R&D than acquisitions. Google will soon be even in that regard. Apple would have to go on major buying spree to catch up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nah
I know you're brand loyal (Apple, VW, Audi, etc), but it's good to take off those blinders sometimes. Not all the companies you're loyal to are doing the right/best things, be less of a homer.
Has nothing to do with brand loyalty. I'm arguing this case based on facts, not emotions. The same can't be said for most people:
Quote:
Who are the morons that approved apples patents, holy fuck are they retarded, patents are awarded way too easily these days, rounded cOrners for phones, who the fuck wants corners with no edges? Multi touch pinch zoom? This shiet is soo standard. How come some of googled patents didnt get approved if some o this basic stuff got approved. This thing is becoming a fcking joke.
- In the last 5 years Apple has spent 3 times as much on R&D as acquisitions.
After checking my numbers I should have said:
- In the last 4.5 years Apple has spent 3.2 times as much on R&D as acquisitions.
Now see what happens when you call someone out? Things actually look better for my argument and worse for yours. Here is my source for R&D spending for Apple over the years. The most recent 2 quarters aren't on the list, but they are available. Apple spent $758 million Q1-2012 and appx $660 millions Q4-2011.
How is taking lifetime stats skewed when I compared Apple's last 5 years of R&D to their entire history of acquisitions? But I'll concede defeat. 10.5 per year for Google vs 2.2 for Apple (instead of my original 1.6 lifetime) makes such a huge difference.
As for Google, sometime next year their R&D spending should finally catch up with acquisitions (if they don't buy any more companies). This is because Google has had massive R&D increases in recent years. In 2005 they spent $600 million. Last year it was around $5.2 billion and this year should top $6 billion.
As a percentage of revenue spent on R&D Google is 12-13% whereas Apple is somewhere around 2.5%.
For a comparison Microsoft will spend around $9 billion this year and leads all tech companies with 146 acquisitions. However, MS also spends huge $$$ on R&D so they are kind of a mix.
Now where are your numbers that back up your claim Apple spends 5 times as much on lawyers? Oh yeah, you don't have any.
I never claimed Apple didn't buy companies and integrate their technology into Apple products. Of course they do - what other reason would there be to buy a tech company?
My original point still stands. Google spends more on acquisitions than R&D, Apple spends more on R&D than acquisitions. Google will soon be even in that regard. Apple would have to go on major buying spree to catch up.
Has nothing to do with brand loyalty. I'm arguing this case based on facts, not emotions. The same can't be said for most people:
regarding R&D costs, do you not think it has something to do with the fact that Apple is a hardware manufacturer whereas Google is not?
__________________ Never argue with a dumbass, they drag you down to their level and try to beat you with experience
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
Of all the examples to use. C'mon, they have 17000 patents for a reason! They didn't spend all that time and resources filing just so they could look at it.
