Explore Newsletters from ECT News Network » View Samples | Subscribe
Welcome Guest | Sign In
ECTNews.com
E-Commerce Times TechNewsWorld CRM Buyer LinuxInsider
Discussions

MacNewsWorld Talkback

 
ECT News Community   »   MacNewsWorld Talkback   »   Re: New Apple Patent Could Put Android in a Headlock



Re: New Apple Patent Could Put Android in a Headlock
Posted by: John P. Mello Jr. 2011-10-28 06:47:00
See Full Story

It's a simple idea: When an unlock slider appears on the screen, swipe your finger to the right to unlock your device. But it could make things very difficult for developers working in platforms, such as Android, that compete with Apple devices, like the iPhone, iPod and iPad. The so-called swipe-to-unlock idea officially became the intellectual property of Apple this week when the U.S. Patent Office approved the company's patent for "unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image."


Patent Anything?
Posted by: eimbier 2011-11-01 16:42:40 In reply to: John P. Mello Jr.
What's next? Will Apple patent pushing the "Home" button? Give the Patent office money, and they seem to have a pretty low bar to pass. Frivolous patents create just another obstacle in building anything in the US.

The whole culture is broken
Posted by: thomasfolks 2011-10-30 01:20:53 In reply to: John P. Mello Jr.
Enterprises should be able to freely compete in the marketplace

Most technical solutions are predicted by the problem in hand, and could be devised by any competent designer, particularly in this mature IT age

A firm such as Apple that can fund a strong legal patent division can effectively "buy" a competitive advantage by just bombarding the marketplace with hundreds of frivolous applications, many of which are granted

Patents were devised to encourage innovation - unfortunately, patents that are issued trivially very much hinder innovation as well as the marketplace

In other words, dozens could identify the obvious solution, only to be hindered by Apple who had the most active patent arm to secure it shortly earlier

The state of technology, science and art etc are public collateral and build on the collective efforts of others.

Smartphones (and tablets) were well and truly developing much before the iPhone, and should be allowed to continue to develop, without this hijacking of obvious ideas through peverting the system

Those patents should never have been granted.

Google's Koolaid
Posted by: Samtech 2011-10-29 03:12:04 In reply to: John P. Mello Jr.
Truth is that Google that has no experience and expertise in operating system technology. Sun, Apple and Microsoft have about 4 decades of experience in developing os. There was no way Google could build this much expertise on its own, It know that the only way it can protect its advertising monopoly and revenue is by having a dominant operating system which it can control. Since it did not have the capabilities to build on its own, it poached employees from Sun, Apple, microsoft and stole their technology and  handed it over free to asian handset vendors. This way it thought it will be protected against litigation while allowing it to extend its monopoly in web services. Google perpetuates a similar fraud with YouTube, where it enables people to upload and share pirated videos and earns ad revenues from them. What is surprising is that no one seems to notice this fraud. Unlike google, napster never directly made money from pirated media, but had to pay a heavy price. It's only fault seems to be that it was a small company.

Besides this farce the other lie being propagated is that Andriod is an open source movement, intended to empower the powerless individual developers, while the sad reality is that it has killed the mobile open source movements like linux and java, by stealing their code and credit, underming their rules and thus destroying their ecosystem.  This koolaid is so intoxicating that it has created a cult of dimwits who will swear that google can do no evil. They will never ask google to open source its search engine software. Imagine if yahoo poaches google employees and open sources it's search engine technology, would google still claim that software should not be protected by intellectual property rights.  But then hypocrisy is the currency narcissists use to deal with dim wits.

You're ignorant of history.
Posted by: twocsies 2011-10-31 17:07:56 In reply to: Samtech
This is a ridiculous mindset. Google is not a physical thing, it is a legal entity, thus it is a conceptual organization of people. Those people are mostly 20-60 years old and many have long work experience in the IT field. For example, Canonical (the company that makes Ubuntu, the popular Linux distro) is a contributor to the Google Chrome OS. And Android was brought into Google in 2005, but had earlier life before that. And Android was developed by Andy Rubin, part of General Magic, mobile OS development company formed in 1990 and which we all know preceded the Apple Newton.

Re: Mr.
Posted by: Samtech 2011-11-01 09:53:02 In reply to: twocsies
Are you just misinformed or spreading misinformation. General Magic was spun off from Apple specifically from Newton project. Aandy Rubin was working in Apple in 1990. You really amaze me. One of the patents which apple accuses andriod of stealing was developed by Andy's seniors when he was still working in Apple. Now since Google is legally responsible for Andy's theft, I prefer naming google too. And no where have I said google is a physical thing. It is a legal entity which is responsible for actions and decisions of its employees.

Besi

Stolen heaven
Posted by: hembreeder 2011-10-28 16:13:49 In reply to: John P. Mello Jr.
There can be little doubt that Samsung would never have made its touch phones had Apple not made theirs. So Samsung took no risk. Apple did. Samsung needed no design craftsmen. Apple did that for them. Samsung didn't need to design the software. Google took care of that by creating a knockoff of Apple's iOS.

Don't believe me? Look at early Android. It was a knockoff of Rimm's blackberry os. When iPhone started whipping blackberry, Google changed Android completely to look and act like iOS.

I say Google and Samsung are way smarter than Apple. They have lowered the price of great phones for everyone. We should leave them alone.

Stolen heaven
Posted by: hembreeder 2011-10-28 12:18:00 In reply to: John P. Mello Jr.
There can be little doubt that Samsung would never have made its touch phones had Apple not made theirs. So Samsung took no risk. Apple did. Samsung needed no design craftsmen. Apple did that for them. Samsung didn't need to design the software. Google took care of that by creating a knockoff of Apple's iOS.

Don't believe me? Look at early Android. It was a knockoff of Rimm's blackberry os. When iPhone started whipping blackberry, Google changed Android completely to look and act like iOS.

I say Google and Samsung are way smarter than Apple. They have lowered the price of great phones for everyone. We should leave them alone.

Hey, have you all noticed that when Apple began to successfully wield its intellectual properties in its war against infringers that now infringers and their sympathizers all of a sudden criticize the patent process? I did.

And did you all notice that when MS did the same with its patents to protect its OS that people did not attack the Patent Office's policies?

I suggest that those who decry Apple's aggressive stance resent the reinvigorated Apple and its recent successes and decry the patent process as a weasely way to attack Apple's fortunes.

Duh!
Posted by: macbrewer 2011-10-28 08:23:29 In reply to: John P. Mello Jr.
How is it that people overlook this? How is it that Goog, in there blatant copying, thinks they can steal this? There are any number of ways to turn the screen on. This is just egging on Apple, and they have every right to sue Google directly over this. Oracle has an even tighter case. Google stole Java from Oracle, any way you look at it.

Don't be evil is a JOKE on Google's part. How is it that you can have a company motto, and then ignore it?
Jump to:
If my employer requires me to return to the company's office full-time to perform my job, I will...
Agree, because I like my job regardless of where I perform my duties.
Comply, because I can't afford to lose my current job.
Go with the flow, but start looking for different employment.
Resign immediately, so I can dedicate all of my time to find a job that better suits my needs.
Try to negotiate a hybrid work from home / work in office arrangement with my employer.