Shared publicly  - 
6
8
Greg Abbott's profile photoMahesh Hariharan's profile photoRene Medina's profile photoPierandrea Guarnieri's profile photo
19 comments
 
False. This universal search isn't a critical feature to even deserve to get banned.
 
Maybe apple should stop patenting overtly broad and simple patents
 
Patents on software should be based strictly in code.  Period.  But, Rene is and always has been an iPhone apologist.  He has no issue with Apple stealing the notification method from Android.  He has selective memory that allows him to pretend that Siri was the first voice search and voice command application in mobile, and that Android is trying to catch them. (And, I admit that Siri has taken the whole voice search thing mainstream, but Android did it first, and Vlingo did it very close to what Siri does before Apple did.)  Stealing ideas is fine as long as it's Apple doing the stealing.  What about when Apple incorporates an NFC chip in the next generation and rips of the Beam technology Google brought with the Galaxy Nexus? I'm sure Rene will be on iMore raving about how innovate and inspired the idea is. Just let everyone use the phones they want, and stop this nonsense.  
 
If you folks read the article, it's not about one patent. Do any of you really want to live in a country where big companies can systematically ignore the property of others, real or intellectual?


 
I blame both companies but I blame Apple more. I seem to remember Apple suing Kodak a day after they filed for bankruptcy. And banning other phones is also a low blow, but if Google has a fix for some of these patent issues then these fixes should of happened awhile ago.
 
And don't forget Google welcomes competition and Apple will do anything to stop it. Just look at Apples browser restriction and how Chrome can't be faster then the Safari browser.
 
I'm angry @ Google but more upset with Apple as these continual issues they seemingly have are on broad based patents in which anyone could file with different legal language & gain aproval. A lot of the ideas Apple seems to "Innovate" have already been done before in other facets on phones, PDA's, or Tablet like ideas in the past. The only thing I gather is that they were able to put it all together with out fully enraging other companies & do it first.

The idea of Siri has been around for a while & Google already had the idea back before the OG iPhone came out but was shot down as it was looked @ differently back then. Google decided to create thier own OS & take a 3yr approach on bringing it out(Siri Competitor/Voice Search) now it's a Patent issue? I'm so sure Apple, but I will agree Rene that Google did force out an OS that wasn't tightly knit enough with some very similar features that could be considered "Rip-Off's" from other companies which does upset me as it creates an opening for wrongful interpetation by everyone & leaves OEM's stuck in the front lines dealing with the shortcomings of a non-fully baked OS. It realy hasn't been till ICS & now Jelly Bean IMO.

What makes Apple look so bad is when it's not top-dog or winning handly they look to start issues or patent disputes where as others didn't do so especially when the OG iPhone came out. They took the hard blows & looked to copy(yes copy) iPhone's model of success and make a phone themselves that could gain that level of success & notarity NOT & I mean NOT start a Patent War so to speak.
 
+Rene Ritchie, of course that's not what I want. But, I also don't want a company to succeed in gaining an injunction against another company for arguing that "a tap is a zero-length swipe". Or that writing a very common function in the simplest form of a programming language can be considered infringement. That kind of lawyering a complete abuse of the patent system.

It's a real shame that these companies couldn't find common ground in licensing talks because, when it comes right down to it, all sides have infringed on some functionality in the creation of their devices. The only question is how much each side innovated on that functionality when they took it and how much they are owed for it.

And, really, how much they're owed should be left to the public when we decide to buy your device over your competitor's.
 
No, I want to live in a country where they are only allowed to patent the code, and not the vaguest, most simplistic language of an action. Apple did not invent this stuff. Its a fable! Using on mobile first does not make you the inventor! And they didn't even use some of it in mobile first. How much crying will you do if Google gets the patent on the notification pull down and stops shipment of the iPhone 5? The iMore crowd would collectively burn down Mountainview.
 
And, I'm going to predict right now, Apple will launch a Google Now clone either with the iPhone 5, or with the next iPad. Then Rene will be on iMore raving about how innovative Apple is, and how Google Now is just a clone of it.
 
Sorry everyone for the long comment hahaha....this sorta junk is absurd IMO no mattee who it is Apple, Google, HTC, etc etc
 
The problem is that Apple isn't trying to protect their intellectual property rights. They are going after products that people prefer to Apples for reasons other than any similarities. It's strictly anti-competition motivated. Nobody would ever point to any of the features in question as a reason they chose the Galaxy Nexus over the iPhone. Next thing you know they'll be suing over Jelly Bean since Apple patented smoothness.
 
+Steven Hoagland 1) Patents aren't the only IP Google has had a problem with. 2) Just like someone can't come to your house and take your car, patents as current (and erroneously) defined can't be violated "just because". 
 
So lets take patents off the table. I've written several books. What gives Google the right to scan and store them without my permission? That's copyright violation, not a patent, and nothing to do with Apple.
 
+Rene Ritchie to post the full book online to read for free?  they don't have the right.  But if I remember correctly (a little rusty) they were scanning the books to make a sort of massive database so you could search terms and phrases.  Like  searching for "And that's all she wrote" and getting a result of book listings how many times the phrase appeared.  Maybe some cool stats about trends of where it appeared, etc.

Was it legal to do so?  considering they settled, apparently not.  But at the same time, how could they approach it.  If they said "we have this awesome idea to create a catalogue of everything written ever.  What licensing model should we use?" Do you think publishing companies would be willing to work with them?  Considering how every other media industry (including publishing) reacted to digital content I doubt it.  Heck, look at the issues Google is getting hosting content in their play store, or how everyone (including apple) is trying to get content available internationally on equal footing.  The entire thing is a huge mess of legal battles.

Does this give Google the right to ride rough-shod over IP?  Of course not.  But like I said earlier, the answer isn't a binary yes/no for what they should've done.  
 
Hey appl*, innovate, don't litigate. Your product is so stale.
 
On the book scanning thing, it is absolutely wrong for them to scan and store copyrighted material without permission. It's good that the library project was not secret, but it doesn't make it right. Copyrighted material should remain fail safe. Google appears to be highly aggressive in getting info on the web, pushing the limits of law in so doing. They don't appear to have evil intent, and it all seems open. So, I'm not going to hate on them. But, it does indicate a troublesome sense of priorities and judgment.
 
Back on patents, highly specific intellectual property rights should be protected. But, broad, general patents should not be used to eliminate competition in whole categories of devices. They shouldn't be able to say "oh, that product is more desirable than ours in ways totally different than ours, so let's sue to ban them on grounds that they swipe to unlock, or use voice to search, etc."
Add a comment...