Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge
The Lounge We're all friends here. Hang out, kick your feet up and talk about whatever the heck you want!

New Forums: Nexus Player | Nexus 9
test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old October 23rd, 2011, 04:42 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 82
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 27
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Default End of android!?

If the dispute with Oracle doesn't end up in Google's favor android is screwed. If i'm not mistaken Oracle is suing Google for 6.1 Billion because they think Google used Java or something like that, i'm a little confused. I just know it won't be good for Android.

Advertisements
Socrat3s is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old October 23rd, 2011, 04:48 PM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Stinky Stinky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a Dumpster! :D
Posts: 3,799
 
Device(s): Huawei Ascend Y300 :D
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 5,152
Thanked 1,420 Times in 1,057 Posts
Default

Hmm I am not 120% happy witht the stuff that google has been doing lately :/

I believe Android 3.0 and Android 4.0 source code are no longer going to published???

I saw that some where.

Shit a brick!

I think I am right? I am not 120% sure though :/

Android Source Code Gone For Good? - Slashdot

Google Android 3.0 "Honeycomb": Open source no more | ZDNet

Doooodgey just dodgey dudes.
__________________
Out walking me Roach Coach ek se!

Brb in 1 000 years
Stinky Stinky is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2011, 04:49 PM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ardchoille's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,684
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1,957
Thanked 1,959 Times in 856 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrat3s View Post
If the dispute with Oracle doesn't end up in Google's favor android is screwed. If i'm not mistaken Oracle is suing Google for 6.1 Billion because they think Google used Java or something like that, i'm a little confused. I just know it won't be good for Android.
Oracle is in bed with Microsoft, and Microsoft, being the kings of FUD that they are, would love for us to believe that Android is doomed.

Don't believe the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt).
ardchoille is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ardchoille For This Useful Post:
9to5cynic (October 25th, 2011)
Old October 23rd, 2011, 04:57 PM   #4 (permalink)
Junior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 82
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 27
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky Stinky View Post
Hmm I am not 120% happy witht the stuff that google has been doing lately :/

I believe Android 3.0 and Android 4.0 source code are no longer going to published???

I saw that some where.

Shit a brick!

I think I am right? I am not 120% sure though :/

Android Source Code Gone For Good? - Slashdot

Google Android 3.0 "Honeycomb": Open source no more | ZDNet

Doooodgey just dodgey dudes.
Wait didn't Google publish the ice cream sandwich sdk?(I could be wrong) Honeycomb wasn't that great though. That's why they made 4.0 for smartphones and tablets. Why do you think the xoom didn't sell good? The software wasn't user friendly.
Socrat3s is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Socrat3s For This Useful Post:
Stinky Stinky (October 23rd, 2011)
Old October 23rd, 2011, 05:01 PM   #5 (permalink)
Member
 
Abdur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
 
Device(s): HTC Desire Rooted S-off dGB with custom HBOOT
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 231
Thanked 35 Times in 28 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky Stinky View Post
Hmm I am not 120% happy witht the stuff that google has been doing lately :/

I believe Android 3.0 and Android 4.0 source code are no longer going to published???

I saw that some where.

Shit a brick!

I think I am right? I am not 120% sure though :/

Android Source Code Gone For Good? - Slashdot

Google Android 3.0 "Honeycomb": Open source no more | ZDNet

Doooodgey just dodgey dudes.
The code for 3.0 was kind of half baked. They didn't want to release that. They will release the 4.0 source code. (Highly likely) The SDK is already out.
__________________
Feel free to thank people if you like their post.

This is true speed.



Abdur is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Abdur For This Useful Post:
Stinky Stinky (October 23rd, 2011)
Old October 23rd, 2011, 05:11 PM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Stinky Stinky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a Dumpster! :D
Posts: 3,799
 
Device(s): Huawei Ascend Y300 :D
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 5,152
Thanked 1,420 Times in 1,057 Posts
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrat3s View Post
Wait didn't Google publish the ice cream sandwich sdk?(I could be wrong) Honeycomb wasn't that great though. That's why they made 4.0 for smartphones and tablets. Why do you think the xoom didn't sell good? The software wasn't user friendly.
Hmm ja good point actually!

:/

It seems there is an Android 4.0 and an Android 3.0 SDK for both Linux and Windows and other main OS's like Macintosh etc etc.

Here:

Android 4.0 Platform | Android Developers

Android 3.0 Platform | Android Developers

Hmm but I am not happy that they have not released the Android 3.0 AND the Android 4.0 Source Code....

Baaaaad stuff.

But I could be wrong not 100% sure though.

I know they can do what ever they want to but I really hope Boot to Gecko will continue the good Spirit Of the Open Source Community... But I can only hope

https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G

I wonder if Boot 2 Gecko will be a success or not?

I dunno though I could be completey off target here lol

But I think I am going off topic with my elite "no concentration skills"

Hahah

Just jokin as I usually do lol

My apologies because I am always going off topic lol
Stinky Stinky is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2011, 05:20 PM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

This story is kind of old. At the end of the day Google and Oracle will settle and sign some sort of licensing deal. That's how it always ends.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2011, 05:25 PM   #8 (permalink)
Check six!
 
Slug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Inverness, UK
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,078
 
Device(s): Sony Xperia Z
Carrier: EE

Thanks: 2,772
Thanked 11,507 Times in 5,847 Posts
Send a message via Skype™ to Slug slugbrem@gmail.com
Default

Isn't Oracle's dispute at least partly over the Dalvik VM? Iirc there's some doubt whether they've actually got any claim to that....

As for Android 4.0 source code, Google have said it will be released once the Galaxy Nexus goes on sale. That's perfectly compliant with GPL etc licensing. The SDK is always released in advance to allow developers to ready their products for the new OS.
Slug is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2011, 05:51 PM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ardchoille's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,684
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1,957
Thanked 1,959 Times in 856 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slug View Post
Isn't Oracle's dispute at least partly over the Dalvik VM? Iirc there's some doubt whether they've actually got any claim to that....

As for Android 4.0 source code, Google have said it will be released once the Galaxy Nexus goes on sale. That's perfectly compliant with GPL etc licensing. The SDK is always released in advance to allow developers to ready their products for the new OS.
Android Open Source Project license

The preferred license for the Android Open Source Project is the Apache Software License, 2.0 ("Apache 2.0"), and the majority of the Android software is licensed with Apache 2.0. While the project will strive to adhere to the preferred license, there may be exceptions which will be handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Linux kernel patches are under the GPLv2 license with system exceptions, which can be found on kernel.org.

Is Google required to release all of the android source code?
ardchoille is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2011, 06:11 PM   #10 (permalink)
Bnice
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Microsoft will continue to be an issue.
Microsoft collects license fees on 50% of Android devices, tells Google to "wake up"
 
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old October 23rd, 2011, 06:21 PM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ardchoille's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,684
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1,957
Thanked 1,959 Times in 856 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnice View Post
Yeah, Microsoft tried to do this with the Linux community too. The say "your software violates our patents, sign our agreement or we'll take you to court", but they never say which patents are being violated, how or why. They're hoping people will sign an agreement based solely on their statements and bow to their pressure. The Linux community told them to put up or shut up. Microsoft never took anyone to court so many assumed Microsoft is lying just to get people to sign their agreements. And now they're doing it to the android community. It's sad that people bow to pressure without first seeing proof. Google probably knows better

Someone should sue Microsoft for harassment and make them show which patents are being violated.
ardchoille is offline  
Last edited by ardchoille; October 23rd, 2011 at 06:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ardchoille For This Useful Post:
9to5cynic (October 25th, 2011), andruoid (October 27th, 2011), MJM128 (October 24th, 2011), Socrat3s (October 23rd, 2011)
Old October 23rd, 2011, 09:56 PM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Gmash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: neither Here nor There
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,796
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S3, Huawei Mercury (stock/rooted), Huawei Ascend (CM7 2.3.5 @710mhz)
Carrier: Cricket

Thanks: 2,286
Thanked 1,573 Times in 1,204 Posts
Default

The only reason Honeycomb source code wasn't released was because it was designed for tablets and Google didn't want people trying to put it on phones and having a bad experience. ICS will still be open source.
__________________
"Machete don't text"
Gmash is online now  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gmash For This Useful Post:
Abdur (October 24th, 2011), Socrat3s (October 23rd, 2011)
Old October 24th, 2011, 02:20 AM   #13 (permalink)
你好
 
mikedt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Xilinhot, China
Posts: 10,251
 
Device(s): Oppo Find 7a, Samsung Galaxy Win Duos(spare), Lenovo P700i(retired), KIRF Galaxy Note(deceased)
Carrier: China Mobile

Thanks: 3,594
Thanked 2,925 Times in 2,119 Posts
Send a message via Skype™ to mikedt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardchoille View Post
Android Open Source Project license

The preferred license for the Android Open Source Project is the Apache Software License, 2.0 ("Apache 2.0"), and the majority of the Android software is licensed with Apache 2.0. While the project will strive to adhere to the preferred license, there may be exceptions which will be handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Linux kernel patches are under the GPLv2 license with system exceptions, which can be found on kernel.org.

Is Google required to release all of the android source code?
AFAIK...Nope... only the GPL licensed portions, namely the Linux kernel. The Apache and BSD licenses carry no obligation for anyone to release source code. They only have to retain the copyright notices.
__________________
The People's Guide to Android in the People's Republic.
Honorary Grand Poobah Shenzhen University English Corner.
http://welcometomychina.tumblr.com/
There are nine million bicycles in Beijing.
There are nine million Androids in Shenzhen.
mikedt is online now  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mikedt For This Useful Post:
Slug (October 24th, 2011)
Old October 24th, 2011, 03:00 AM   #14 (permalink)
The PearlyMon
 
EarlyMon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 46,461
 
Device(s): M8, LTEvo, 3vo, and Shift - Evo retired
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 42,774
Thanked 57,265 Times in 23,020 Posts
Default

More sensationalism.

Both parties upped the ante to over 6 billion - the judge told them to come back to reality or face court sanctions.

That was weeks - months? - ago.
EarlyMon is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
ardchoille (October 24th, 2011), Gmash (October 24th, 2011), Snow_Fox (October 26th, 2011)
Old October 24th, 2011, 09:24 AM   #15 (permalink)
One bite at a time...
 
Martimus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: 'neath a cactus
Posts: 19,519
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S-5, Samsung Galaxy Pro 12.2
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1,921
Thanked 4,032 Times in 2,410 Posts
martimus98
Default

I wouldn't worry too much about Oracle. Larry Ellison of Oracle has made a career out of bullying people.
__________________
Yea though I walk through the Valley of Google I shall fear no Apple...

Advice provided comes from fellow Android enthusiasts. We're not tech support. Please do your due dilligence before implementing! And if someone helped you, please share the love with the button...
Martimus is online now  
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Martimus For This Useful Post:
9to5cynic (October 25th, 2011), ardchoille (October 25th, 2011), EarlyMon (October 24th, 2011)
Old October 25th, 2011, 07:23 PM   #16 (permalink)
Bnice
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Looks like more trouble for Android.
Every Android device now infringes Apple patent: Slide to unlock | ZDNet
 
Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2011, 09:02 PM   #17 (permalink)
Accept no imitations!
 
The_Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Manchester, TN
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,322
 
Device(s): Note 3 (rooted & ROMmed), Galaxy Nexus (retired), OG Droid (retired)
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 2,616
Thanked 7,147 Times in 3,391 Posts
Default

Good thing face unlock is coming with Ice Cream Sandwich! I'm shocked that Apple didn't try to patent "unlock" completely, making Apple users the only people who could lock/unlock their phones.

DANG! I'd better shut up before they file the paperwork!
__________________



If I have helped you at all, please click the "Thanks" button
Forum Rules & Guidelines
The_Chief is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2011, 07:31 AM   #18 (permalink)
The PearlyMon
 
EarlyMon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 46,461
 
Device(s): M8, LTEvo, 3vo, and Shift - Evo retired
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 42,774
Thanked 57,265 Times in 23,020 Posts
Default

How interesting. The story first hit 9-to-5 Mac, here's the link -

Slide to Unlock? Patented! | 9to5Mac | Apple Intelligence

Earlier, that story referenced patent 7,657,849 because it was filed in 2005 (but actually granted in Feb 2010.

Abstract:

Quote:
A device with a touch-sensitive display may be unlocked via gestures performed on the touch-sensitive display. The device is unlocked if contact with the display corresponds to a predefined gesture for unlocking the device. The device displays one or more unlock images with respect to which the predefined gesture is to be performed in order to unlock the device. The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined location and/or moving the unlock image along a predefined path. The device may also display visual cues of the predefined gesture on the touch screen to remind a user of the gesture.
But now 9-to-5 is correctly noting the 2004 Neonode N1m was cited by a Dutch judge who declared the Apple patent invalid due to this prior art -

Neonode N1m review - YouTube

(edit - try not to go nuts on tnkgrl from Engadget swapping her lefts and rights in the explanation - she was watching another display and goofed, it happens)

Meanwhile, they also updated the article to explain that it was patent 8,046,721 that was granted on Oct 25, 2011, interestingly filed in June 2009. Note the abstract -

Quote:
A device with a touch-sensitive display may be unlocked via gestures performed on the touch-sensitive display. The device is unlocked if contact with the display corresponds to a predefined gesture for unlocking the device. The device displays one or more unlock images with respect to which the predefined gesture is to be performed in order to unlock the device. The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined location and/or moving the unlock image along a predefined path. The device may also display visual cues of the predefined gesture on the touch screen to remind a user of the gesture.
So - the new patent filed in 2009 is a continuation (expansion?) of the patent filed in 2005.

I'm too busy or bored to track down iPhone details. There will be a lot of work for the legal hounds on this one. Five years on that first patent - that means that an examiner was not happy and Apple had to answer to their questions. That was probably the basis for the 2009 filing.

I was curious enough to see how wide this patent went on touchscreen tech and found -

Quote:
The touch screen 126 and touch screen controller 122 may detect contact and any movement or break thereof using any of a plurality of touch sensitivity technologies, including but not limited to capacitive, resistive, infrared, and surface acoustic wave technologies, as well as other proximity sensor arrays or other elements for determining one or more points of contact with the touch screen 126.
If other courts agree with the Dutch judge, then Apple has tried to patent prior art and this all goes away.

If we get judges like that German idiot - well... it'll be more fun and games.
EarlyMon is offline  
Last edited by EarlyMon; October 26th, 2011 at 07:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
Old October 26th, 2011, 07:49 AM   #19 (permalink)
Pātes avec votre foie
 
pastafarian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Sea of Tranquility
Posts: 5,582
 
Device(s): LG G3 (Me), Samsung GS5 (Wife) Evo4G LTE (Son1), Nexus 7, Nook Tablet All rooted?
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 3,848
Thanked 4,549 Times in 2,019 Posts
pastafarianaf@gmail.com
Default

Another Apple patent for something that existed before Apple first "invented" it. There were slide to unlock tools on WM (WinCE back then actually)that way out date the 2009 or 2005 filings. Apple design is great, but their marketing and legal (abuse) departments are really where their strengths lie.
__________________
The RULES, follow them and prosper!

Did you forget to kiss a Mod today?
pastafarian is online now  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to pastafarian For This Useful Post:
EarlyMon (October 26th, 2011)
Old October 26th, 2011, 01:28 PM   #20 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,498
 
Device(s): Lg Optimus G HTC Flyer
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 124
Thanked 132 Times in 97 Posts
Default

"HI I am going for a computer science degree!"

"Well that is lovely which law school do you plan to attend?"
__________________
Sent form my Xarmor U9BL using My Fingers!
Snow_Fox is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Snow_Fox For This Useful Post:
EarlyMon (October 26th, 2011), Stinky Stinky (October 27th, 2011)
sponsored links
Old October 26th, 2011, 01:49 PM   #21 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Apparently there is also some dispute over whether the Apple patent covers swiping left to right to unlock (which Android doesn't violate if they just change the lock screen to swipe down) or whether it covers all swiping motions on the touch screen to unlock (which Android violates even with it's pattern to unlock feature). Apple will try to argue the latter as they should (I would in their shoes). Every other phone manufacturer will try to argue prior art and/or that it's obvious. How else will you unlock a touch screen phone?
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2011, 04:07 PM   #22 (permalink)
The PearlyMon
 
EarlyMon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 46,461
 
Device(s): M8, LTEvo, 3vo, and Shift - Evo retired
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 42,774
Thanked 57,265 Times in 23,020 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Apparently there is also some dispute over whether the Apple patent covers swiping left to right to unlock (which Android doesn't violate if they just change the lock screen to swipe down) or whether it covers all swiping motions on the touch screen to unlock (which Android violates even with it's pattern to unlock feature). Apple will try to argue the latter as they should (I would in their shoes). Every other phone manufacturer will try to argue prior art and/or that it's obvious. How else will you unlock a touch screen phone?
I missed that in the patents. Seemed very clearly written to cover all embodiments, not just left to right.
EarlyMon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2011, 04:21 PM   #23 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlyMon View Post
I missed that in the patents. Seemed very clearly written to cover all embodiments, not just left to right.
Yeah it does the more I read it. It's pretty incredibly broad to the point where you have to wonder why it was even granted in the first place.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to A.Nonymous For This Useful Post:
EarlyMon (October 26th, 2011)
Old October 26th, 2011, 06:06 PM   #24 (permalink)
The PearlyMon
 
EarlyMon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 46,461
 
Device(s): M8, LTEvo, 3vo, and Shift - Evo retired
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 42,774
Thanked 57,265 Times in 23,020 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Yeah it does the more I read it. It's pretty incredibly broad to the point where you have to wonder why it was even granted in the first place.
The patents I've gotten, worked on, have dealt with, were all very tight in the language. In one of my earliest ones I drafted the phrase, "including but not limited to" because that's common language in requirements and also contracts, btw.

My attorney all but slapped me. I had to list each embodiment so that there was no doubt what my claim was.

Yet, here is a post-dot-com patent, and that phrase is there: including but not limited to.

And this is not a small point and I'm not nit-picking.

I believe that individuals and companies ought to be able to seek legal protection against infringement of their intellectual property.

However - for that to work, the definitions of the property have to be clear. Not from a nit-picking legal sense - to the patent examiner. Old school, you and your attorney searched for prior art according to enumerated claims - and then the examiner searched even more deeply, taking sometimes years just on the search.

I think when the language is broad, the examiners are limited in their search - and what isn't refuted in patents is granted.

I've been wondering how we could have gotten so many patents granted in the last decade and with that language, I can see why.

I often am involved with contracts for our company. My attorney says repeatedly, leave nothing vague, because anything vague hurts both parties later if we have to go to court.

And what are we seeing today? In my opinion, vaguely worded patents in court getting dragged out and only then cross-referenced to reality and all of the arguments that entails.

Does Android infringe on the Apple patent or was it too broad or covered by prior art?

Much of this could have been avoided - either the bad patent, the infringement if it did happen, or the protracted court battle that's apparently coming.

As who pays for this?

Taxpayers, shareholders and consumers.

In other words, everyone except the guilty parties.

That's how I see it, anyways. Your mileage may vary.
EarlyMon is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
Drhyde (October 29th, 2011)
Old October 27th, 2011, 09:47 AM   #25 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

In the world of patents I think it's in the companies best interest to be vague. If I can patent, you touch the screen and something happens then I have basically patented a touch screen. It's extremely broad, but I can sue everyone and maybe one of them will pay up which makes it worth my while. The more specific I get the easier it is for someone to step around my patent.

If Apple had patented "you slide an icon from left to right", then all Android (or anyone else for that matter) has to do is just make you slide from right to left. Problem solved. But that's not Apple's intent here. They don't just want to just protect their IP, they want to punish their competitors in the process. I'm not saying Apple is evil for doing this either as every company out there is doing the same thing.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2011, 02:05 PM   #26 (permalink)
The PearlyMon
 
EarlyMon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 46,461
 
Device(s): M8, LTEvo, 3vo, and Shift - Evo retired
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 42,774
Thanked 57,265 Times in 23,020 Posts
Default

As IOWA likes to point out, lots of people eat at McDonalds. Doesn't make it right.

Before the dot-com changes to our patent system, companies had little trouble keeping embodiment descriptions broad without making them vague.

Can't say it enough - we live in broken times. Look up patent 6080436, the "Bread Refreshing Method" - yep. It's a patent on toasting bread.

Intellectual Ventures And The War Over Software Patents : Planet Money : NPR
EarlyMon is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
Gmash (October 27th, 2011)
Old October 28th, 2011, 03:08 PM   #27 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlyMon View Post
As IOWA likes to point out, lots of people eat at McDonalds. Doesn't make it right.

Before the dot-com changes to our patent system, companies had little trouble keeping embodiment descriptions broad without making them vague.

Can't say it enough - we live in broken times. Look up patent 6080436, the "Bread Refreshing Method" - yep. It's a patent on toasting bread.

Intellectual Ventures And The War Over Software Patents : Planet Money : NPR
I looked at the patent. I am not sure my oven will reach four thousand five hundred degrees, however. So, I can continue refreshing my bread products, right? Morning without a nice biscuit or muffin would be unbearable.

Seriously, if the patent owner(s) tried to enforce their patent, how far would they get?

And I absolutely agree with you. The system needs to be refreshed as per patent #6080436.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Maxey For This Useful Post:
EarlyMon (May 23rd, 2012)
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:20 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.