Apple hired his company when they could not come up with there own interface. Later they bought his company.

They are not suing to eliminate their competitors - nothing could be further from the truth. They are suing to get features removed from competing devices that Apple owns the IP on.

Now people will say things like overscroll bounce are minor features. I ask you this: if they are so minor, then how can Apple suing over them possibly result in the elimination of their competitors? The end result will be a few features removed from competitors which will then differentiate Apple products from theirs.

Perhaps the douchebag move is copying from your biggest customer? Did you ever stop to think of the other position, or do you automatically assume Apple is in the wrong?

Samsung Semiconductor will sell perhaps $12 billion to Apple this year. Samsung Mobile will lose a few hundred million in lawsuits. Do you think Samsung Semi is going to, for example, stop selling to Apple and lose billions over a "spat" between Apple and Samsung Mobile? I've said it before: I bet Samsung Semi isn't too happy with Samsung Mobile for getting Apple pissed off and possibly jeopardizing their gravy train of parts orders.

What has Apple invented? Here's one - MacroScalar Processor Architecture. They also recently trademarked Macroscalar and there's rumors it may be making its way into iPhones/iPads fairly soon. If you're interested in processor design, then you might want to glance over these patents:

Macroscalar Patents

Apple employs numerous engineers in the field of processor and chip design. They own patents on a lot of processor architecture going back to when they used PowerPC's in their computers.

Now why would a "marketing" company need to have engineers that should be working over at Intel or AMD? Why does Apple even employ engineers? You don't need an engineer to take a bunch of parts and slap them together.

Off the top of my head, did they come up with front camera on their phones/tablets for Facetime? I can only think of old ass Samsung or LG phones where you can flip the cam lens. I could be totally wrong here though.

It might be one of the only thing that unifies all Apple products but IMO it's the worst part about Apple products.

I only own one Apple product and I avoid that POS software...unless it's changed drastically in the last few year gosh it was terrible.

You are. My old Windows Mobile phone had a front camera

Anyway my feeling on this is who the fuck cares? You don't have to be an inventor to be an innovator. And one thing Apple did was make people extremely rich by marketing a certain way. Also, the app store changed how everything is done, and made Android and WP viable once they did the same. They didn't invent the app store, but they innovated it, and everyone followed suit. That is good for everyone, from developers to end users.

One thing Apple did 'invent' was really fucking annoying fanboys. I have always said, I have nothing for or against Apple. They are just a company. But their fanboys... they are among the most annoying people around, and they aren't even trolling.

no they didnt
they rebranded and innovated how we use those cameras to chat though. go back to my article on page 1 that I posted on how device manufactures absolutely hate carrier rules and such, and thus facetime was wifi only. Cellular networks and the 3G already allow this tech to happen

Okay, but has Apple never copied other companies? I'm not completely sure on what I am about to say, so please do correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Android put 'voice actions' on their phones before Apple came up with Siri? If Google played the same way Apple does, Google would go ahead and sue Apple for using phones with voice commands....the same way Apple is trying to sue Samsung for using rounded corners...like come on....

*I'm not stating that Android was the first to ever make a phone with voice commands, but rather simply making my point that Apple was not and yet I don't see anyone suing them over Siri...

Apple copied lots of stuff. The Gui WYSIWYG printers ect. Mostly from Xerox.

he first home computer with a GUI or graphical user interface was the Apple Lisa. The very first graphical user interface was developed by the Xerox Corporation at their Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) in the 1970s. Steve Jobs, visited PARC in 1979 (after buying Xerox stock) and was impressed and influenced by the Xerox Alto, the first computer ever with a graphical user interface. Jobs designed the new Apple Lisa based on the technology he saw at Xerox.


Al Fasoldt
Copyright © 1992, The Syracuse Newspapers

In the early 1980s, the two Steves who had founded Apple Computer - Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak - drove over to a computer research center run by Xerox in Palo Alto, Calif. At "Xerox PARC," as the laboratory was called, a friend who worked at Xerox took them on a fateful tour.
The two Steves spotted an odd computer at PARC called the Star. Practically nobody remembers the Star these days, but the guys from Apple gave it a place in history. It made such an impression on them that they decided they had to make a computer of their own that worked the same way.
They borrowed the ideas of putting boxes on the screen, called windows, from the Star, and they also copied the way the Star showed little drawings of things on the screen. The little drawings, called "icons," did various operations when you moved a pointer over them.
The key to everything was a mouse - a device the size of a bar of soap that you rolled around on the desk beside the computer. Wherever the mouse went on the desk, the pointer went on the screen. When you clicked the button on the mouse, the computer went into action.

I don't get why people say things like this. If they own the patent, legally, they "invented" it. It doesn't matter if they actually invented it or not. The outcome of the trial won't depend on whether Apple actually invented anything. If Samsung copied something on the iPhone and Apple has it patented, then they are fucked.

It isn't like Apple is the only one that has patent wars either...they just do it the most and the most high profile. Just watch what happens when the war for Kodak's patents is done.

No, but they were definitely the first to bring it to the masses. Do you remember video chat before Facetime? It never worked properly. Anyone remember data plans before the iPhone made 6GB data (or "unlimited" in the States) for $30 the standard?

A patent doesn't have a real value unless they can defend it in court. You can patent almost anything the system is too over burdened to check every application completely.

:seriously:

Bad examples.

Skype was mainstream long before Facetime was even announced.

Apple didn't pioneer the 6GB data plans, they were simply an excuse for carriers to justify introducing all that at a time when 500MB was the standard.

Likewise, if Samsung doesn't like it, they don't have to sell their parts to Apple. Why is your analysis so one sided? All that's happening is this: Cooperating on the value chain, competing on the product. Samsung knows it. Apple knows it.

And they're all douchebags. They copy and infringe on each other on purpose. So what? Let the courts work it out.

http://iosnova.files.wordpress.com/2...2-pm.png?w=560

http://cdn-static.zdnet.com/i/story/...1-17-54-34.png

http://cdn-static.zdnet.com/i/story/...1-17-55-01.png

Yes, I'm aware a bunch of phones had video chat before the iPhone. I asked "Do you remember video chat before the iPhone?", not "There was no video chat before the iPhone." because video chat before then was tiny 100x100 pixels squares on shitty Sony Ericsson or Nokias that required the person on the other side to also have a similar phone. I know...I used them and they were ass terrible.

Apple didn't make a 6GB data plan...the carriers did. The iPhone was a catalyst for those things. Another phone would've come along and done it if the iPhone hadn't but just like you can see a lot of innovation in the automobile industry by looking at the Mercedes S Class, a bunch of things were on the iPhone before they were standard across the board. Data plans were expensive as hell before. Maybe that's just a product of time but because of increased data usage, data had to get cheaper as smartphones became more the norm.

Did Skype allow for video chat on a mobile platform before Apple introduced a front facing camera on the iPhone? If that happened then it must've been on an Android phone in 2009?

And I think we're talking in the context of North America since RS is in Canada and what the Japanese or Koreans have on their fancy pants awesome mobile phone services have anything to do with what we got over here.

So if it wasn't widely used in North America, then Apple gets credit for creating it?

That is some fanboyriffic logic right there.:fulloffuck:

Most of Apple's patents have stood up in court. A few have been invalidated, but none of those decisions are final yet. And what might be considered invalid in one country is considered valid in another due to differences in IP law. This is the main reason why you see Apple filing suits in different countries - they are testing the waters to see which patents hold up in court.

Microsoft is collecting a lot of royalties from Android OEM's. Years ago, companies would fight MS in court. But MS has numerous court victories over their patents, so these days companies don't fight them since they know they'll lose. Apple is in the same position today MS was years ago. Once they have a few court victories under their belt oregarding their IP, they won't need to sue since companies will simply settle.

Nothing has really changed.

So your saying, if you put together a perfectly working transporting device that can transport people or items to anywhere in the world but I took it and put a patent on it.. its mine.. if you took me to court, i would win saying its mine because i have the patent but the device has your name engraved in it :suspicious:

I didn't say they made it. I said they made it mainstream. No one said FaceTime was the first video chat solution to exist.

Yes, you'd win because I was stupid enough to not patent something I invented.

Unless the device has my name and date on the bottom of it and that predates your patent...and even then I doubt I'd win because I don't have any proof that I invented the device before your patent.

We aren't talking moral obligations here. That would be a douche move on your part but I put myself in that position by showing you before getting it submitted to a patent office. The courts will see it as yours.

What...you think all the people that own patents actually made the products first?

But most of their patents and lawsuit are like this:

1) Nissan patented their 4x Round Rear Brakelight pattern you see on all the GTR
2) Any car company that makes anything resembling 4x round rear brakelight, Nissan will sue them
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/5...cfc88c8c53.jpg

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/9...impalarear.jpg

http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/7...1329205035.jpg



Problem is...there are literally thousands of these patents out there right now for companies like Apple and Samsung... it is like car makers suddenly start patenting things such as square and rounded side mirrors, chrome grill, curve on body panels, raise up hoods, square vs rounded headlights & brakelights, center speedometer, distance between your throttle and brake pedal, wheelbase length, steering wheels designed to be operated with your hands...etc etc

You can't build anything without infringing on anyone's patents!

Most of these patents are retarded they are just throwing it around in court to delay or damage their competitors

^ No you can't.

If you and I are working on something similar and I happen to patent mine before you do then you're screwed.

However, you can't patent something that already exists. This is where prior art comes into play. If someone can show where something was previously done then your patent can be invalidated. However, it's going to have to exist in the public somewhere. Discovering an "invention" in a basement that's been hiding for years won't count as prior art.

People have tried to use Neonodes "slide to unlock" feature to try and invalidate Apple's slide to unock patent, but this won't likely stand up either. Apple's system is significantly different than Neonodes and offers numerous improvements. That's another thing you can do with patents - make an improvement to an existing idea and get a patent for your new version. This is why there are literally hundreds of patents on light bulbs.

Edit: meant for FerrariEnzo

Ferra: Its stupid but it happened and it's apparently legal. Take a look at the recent iOS patent looking at the status bar up top or the messaging system. Analysts fear this one will let Apple kill Android in its current form.

FerrariEnzo/dangonay: Yes, the invention has to exist in public domain or somehow legally certified before you can fight a patent in court. That's why Apple and Samsung are whipping out all these '05 prototypes in the case.

Maybe in stone age North America. In Asia they had video chat mainstream years before we even had a taste of 3G

Prior art

Apple patented the magsafe safe connector but companies that make deep fryers have been using that style of connector for decades and is still being used by major companies. Apple has a patent but won't sue them because they would lose.