What did Apple actually invent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BleAivano

Do car manufacturers sue each other when they loan some design futures from each other?

The answer is no they don't.

---

Errr car manufacturers aggressively threaten each other with legal action if they believe certain features are copied. The difference between car manufacturers and electronics manufacturers is that the former are very keen to differentiate their products from other makers whereas imitation is far more common in electronics.

Where car makers feel that a rival is bringing something to market that may confuse the customer as to its origin they sue. Hence why the 911 is not called the 901 as Porsche originally intended as Peugeot successfully brought a court case against them claiming they had the right to the x-0-x numbering system as a brand. Ditto Ford vs Ferrari over the F150 name. There have been numerous court cases in China against local makers that have blatantly copied Western manufacturers.

Another difference is that car manufacturers are less secretive and are far more likely to hire expertise and share information from rival companies although they do not want the public to know about this. Hence they trade patents or simply buy the completed product fully above board from rivals negating the need for companies to sue. Again where information is thought to have been stolen from a rival they will not hesitate to sue. Check out GM suing VW for Lopez taking his corporate secrets with him ending in a $100 million cash settlement and a further agreement that VW buy $1 billion worth of spares from GM. Puts this whole Apple vs Samsung tiff into perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BleAivano

I also have no faith in the USA courts that will decide in the matter.

---

In this case I believe the judge has been reasonable pressing both sides to settle this at the top level outside the legal system to come to a sensible agreement. Neither side have been interested in doing so. I suspect that whatever the conclusion reached, it will not be what either Apple or Samsung hoped for but something intended to deter both and other parties from bringing similar cases in the future.

Once certain patents are recognized as industry standards, the license holders are compelled to offer them for a reasonable price under license agreements to competitors. The European version of this requirement is called FRAND: Fair and Reasonable Use Standards. In the U.S., it is RAND: Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms. These measures are meant to ensure a certain level of device and component compatibility. But it does not give OEM's free reign to copy or use a patented products or innovations at will, even when some attempt has been made to secure a license. When that happens, or one party feels that it has happened, there will be a legal dispute, as we're seeing throughout the high tech sector now. So they go to court. And a judge and/or jury decides who is in the right. That's just what (hopefully) happens in a civil society.

And speaking of the automotive industry, Caroll Shelby most certainly did go to court to protect the "look and feel" of the Cobra design, when various companies began making Cobra replicas years ago without his permission. And rather than steal the patented technology, Ferrari pays General Motors a licensing fee for the adaptive magnetic suspension technology that it uses. A little known fact (that just came out during the Apple vs. Samsung trial) is that Apple licenses certain mobile technologies to (wait for it)... Microsoft! :eek: But MSFT is prohibited from making iPhone or iPad clones. The same thing happens in the TV industry. If Sony owns a patent, and Samsung wants to use this innovation in its TV's, it can. But it has to secure a license to (legally) do it. I have a DirecTV TiVo box in my house. It just went through a major software upgrade a few weeks ago. Lots of cool new features. And as I was digging around in the support documentation deep in the software, I noticed that TiVo has licensed certain technologies from Apple, related to the Bonjour service. That's perfectly legal. But when EchoStar attempted to lift certain TiVo features, mostly related to the TiVo Time Warp feature, and use them without paying a fee, TiVo sued them and it cost EchoStar/Dish Network a cool $500 million.

If I had just bought a high tech company for a couple of billion dollars (still hoping that my bank loan will go through for my hostile takeover of Commodore Computer :dozey :) , I would hope that I would call an attorney if I had a dispute with another company. Otherwise, I could do it the Mexican Zeta Way: have my henchman go over to the rival CEO's house and shoot his dog, his cat and his kid's pet hamster (I'm gangsta like that!). :bandit:

Apple feels that it has been wronged, so they lawyered up. It was either that or call Luca Brasi...
http://img202.imagevenue.com/loc173/..._122_173lo.jpg

What did Apple actually invent? Internet haters, trolling various forums to spew their dislike of a very popular brand/OS combination that most actual users find rock solid and a great interface. This also created a growth in the internet fanboi revolution, though initial credit for that is mostly owned by Microsoft. :)

Lol airshifter :up: :D

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net...04804_700b.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

I think thats the thing about this discussion. Apple appears to attract more criticism than any other provider and I can't understand why that is. If it was down solely to the cost, or the fact people thought the OS was rubbish for the money, then they simply wouldn't buy it and not be at all bothered by it. But there is alot of passion in these arguments and a need to put Apple down by some which is confusing. Android offers a great alternative to Apple and I've been thoroughly happy with my Android phones, but I've never allowed myself to become single minded about one service to the point I would never consider anything else.

I think the real issue is that people know Apple are very good at what they do, if not a little on the pricey side, but feel because they maybe out of reach of can't justify the expense themselves, they feel the need to criticize in order to make them feel better about what they have. Thats all fine, but I'm a firm believer in buying what you like (can afford) and for what best suits your needs. I recently had the opportunity (saved a bit of money) to choose between signing up to Sky for the F1, or buying a device that I will use everyday and get far more use out of. Sod the F1, I can watch that on the beeb and can get a nice shiney phone instead. Still haven't decided whether it will be the iPhone or the new Samsung S3 in Black.. :)

---

This is almost a mirror image of my view. I don't currently own any Apple products, but our daughter has an older iPod touch. But it's a give and take thing... I got a deal on my Android phone but I'll be the first to admit the interface isn't as user friendly as the Apple product is. Cheaper is better in some cases to some people, but in other cases or people cheaper is often just cheaper.

I made the mistake of upgrading my phone to Ice Cream Sandwich at the end of the work week. While some love it, it just slowed down my productivity the end of that week. The interface changed just enough to slow things down and make me look for things I was previously familiar with. Thus is slowed down the human part of the interface.

I don't understand the haters on either side myself. I could buy all of us in my family new iPhones and iPads, as well as computers. But I don't hate anyone because I've made a choice not to do it. Nor will I hate any non Apple users if I finally get an iPad. It just makes no sense to me, and is juvenile. There are a lot of phone features that can still be done with pencil and paper. I wonder if those choosing to use a calculator or paper calendar hate all of us technology users? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net...04804_700b.jpg

---

I can just see it now... many men reminding woman that mass storage space is very important these days, while some others say less is just fine!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

The current patent tit for tit isn't helping anyone and is stifling innovation.

---

Agreed. Genuine new innovations deserve to be protected, but natural evolutions of product design do not. Apple seem to be the main culprits of this, although as stated others are becoming as bad. You can't copyright the basic shape of an iPhone or iPad when those products themselves owe so much to their predecessors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net...04804_700b.jpg

---

Will we hear that more than 34(C) gigs is a waste? Well, one thing is for certain, Apple sales of 34(DD) gig storage devices in Orange County and Beverly Hills, CA are going to shoot through the roof! If they can manage to develop something similar and call it iLips, I look for AAPL to top $2000/ share within six months! :bounce:

Apple probably invented the iMarketing and iBS.

But as regards to everything else, not even close to invention ;)

BTW, welcome back Denial :D