Comment Re:Didn't Android *always* have Chrome? (Score 1) 142
It does have incognito tabs :)
You're arguing a complete straw man. I never said they weren't within their rights. I never said that what they are doing is illegal, nor even hinted at it.
I'm also not talking about things that are "OMFG why didn't I think of that." I'm talking about things that when that particular problem was put to me I went "So, why don't you just do this?" after thinking about it for roughly 5 or 10 minutes. Or problems that result in my reaction of "you mean they don't just do X? Why the hell not?" And then found out that those solutions are patented by MS, which is why they don't do it.
When there's prior art along with thousands of competent software engineers who all look at something like showing you the text in the browser while still loading the background images to make it seem faster (rather than just waiting until everything is downloaded) and go "well, duh!?" at the solution, then the patent should never have been granted.
I never said that they can't do what they are doing, or that it is illegal in anyway, I just said that I don't like it, and it's wrong for them to do it, for these patents to have been granted, etc. If you're going to argue with me, at least argue the point I am arguing, rather than a straw man.
No one said they broke any laws. And it's not just MS hate, I hate on pretty much every company that uses their patents offensively.
The patent isn't trivial because I call it that, the patent is trivial because an ordinary software engineer would find the solution to be obvious. These patents, along with many others, should never have been granted. It's more of an example why software patents are just a horrible idea. The implementation is not patented, the idea is, which is contrary to the purpose of patents.
In addition, just because they have a patent does not mean they must assert the patent just to make a buck (use it offensively). Microsoft makes more money from Android phones than from their own Windows phones, by asserting trivial patents that should not have been granted. Regardless the legality, it's what many would call being a troll.
used it to justify taking material from microsoft, apple, and oracle
Since we're just discussing microsoft here, let's take a look at the patents that Microsoft is using:
Please tell me how those aren't common sense things that are trivial to be patented. You can't because any engineer worth his salt will see the problem that needs to be solved and find the obvious solution, which is each of these. Not to mention the prior art.
Like I said, if there existed examples of common red London bus/b&w Big Ben artwork before 2006, then that would constitute prior art, and the plaintiff shouldn't have won. However, TFA says that the defendant could not provide dates for the examples he offered.
This is copyright, not patents. Prior Art means nothing.
How is reading a book different from playing a video game? Both are a hobby that one can partake in that provides enjoyment. Both take a lot of work to produce. But one is referred to as an "adolescent mentality" and the other is not, that makes no sense.
Did you know the average gamer is 21 - 35 years old? You going to say that everyone in the entire industry has an adolescent mentality? Give me a break...
Google is the new Microsoft creating a platform of ass and reaping billions for it in spite of themselves
hmm, except for the whole open source, free license, unlocked bootloaders, etc......
The definition of "dedicated" is up to interpretation. Already under the "Operation In Our Sites" that ICE is performing, many legitimate websites have been caught in the crossfire while being claimed as "dedicated" to copyright infringement. Several were accused of copyright infringement and had their websites taken down, only to find out that the videos were given to them by the copyright owners as promotional material.
We don't give the government right to take down a website without due process, no matter what. Not only that, but even The Pirate Bay has some legitimate, non-infringing content on it.
The government and big-business do not get to decide what is and is not allowed to be accessed. If the law is being broken, then charge or sue the people who are breaking the law, that is it.
choices that have already greatly enriched the options available to consumers
They have only enriched the options available to consumers because other companies were free to see what works, copy, modify and improve upon it. You are arguing that once Apple created the iPhone, no other device would be allowed to be created during the life of the patent that uses a similar feature set. Effectively, you want patents to hinder competition even more than they already do. This is a ridiculous notion. If anything, this is an argument that that protection is not needed at all as Apple more than managed to make billions in profit without those protections.
The LG Prada makes my point very well because the LG Prada was not a big success, despite being made by a well-known factory and having a famous design imprint. Hardly anybody in the US has used it, because no US carrier even bothered to offer it. Clearly, it takes more than just a touchscreen to transform the market for phones.
What's that you say? That it takes more than having a full touchscreen and a rectangular shape and bezels to copy a device? That even though they used a similar physical design, the problem was that the iPhone had better software? Hmm....that seems suspiciously familiar....
It would seem that even Apple and all their innovative glory, imitated the LG Prada. The difference between them, was that the software for the iPhone was better.
Oh, yea. That's what I already said. You seem to have missed my point. Since we have gotten off to a large tangent, I'll try to bring it back. The conversation was talking about the form-factor, and physical design. Apple themselves copied the physical design of the LG Prada (if they didn't they've never denied it) and paired it with better software to differentiate it. They didn't pioneer anything but usable software to go with a touch screen. Just as Samsung has created a tablet in a similar design to the iPad because that design is what consumers want, Apple created the iPhone in a similar design to the LG Prada because that was the "New big idea".
As I said, the concept of a flat, rectangular, bezeled device is nothing new at all. There's nothing novel about it.The software running on it that takes advantage of the form factor and makes it as useful and easy to use, that is novel.
Exactly. There is more to a successful touch phone or pad than just the form factor. What transformed the market was Apple's felicitous combination of a particular hardware design with software designed and optimized to take advantage of it--which is why the clones have imitated both.
You even agree with me. Except where we disagree, is where you are claiming that only Android is imitating the iPhone, when instead, both are imitating each other. I'll even give you, based on the posts you linked, that the design change from a blackberry-like device to a full-screen touchscreen device was to compete against the iPhone. But for everything you could probably name where Android supposedly "copied" or "imitated" the iPhone or iPad, I could also name ways where the iPhone and iPad are imitating Android. Apple is not this shining paragon of innovation. They do the same as everyone else, figure out what features the competition has that consumers want and copy them. Then come up with new things such as improvements or new features that differentiate themselves from the competition. If you really believe that what I just described is wrong and bad....then you think that the iPhone shouldn't have Copy&Paste, that they shouldn't have drag down notifications, hell, you believe that the iPhone shouldn't have the ability to add third-party applications! All of these were design choices made by Apple after competitors had them and they copied the idea, and implemented it.
Market share is pretty misleading here, since Apple's market share of iPad-like devices was initially infinite, so clearly it would drop. In Apple's form factor (as opposed to el-cheapo 7" pads), Apple remains dominant. There is clearly a market for devices like the Fire and Nook--but it is a different market.
I never said Apple wasn't still dominant. Hell, I said they have 63% of the market. However, the Kindle and Nook are not a different market than the iPad. They are simply lower cost alternatives. That's like saying that Volkswagen cars aren't in the same market as Lexus cars. Of course they are in the same market, the VW is just a lower cost alternative. There are pros and cons based on what features you get for your money. It's still the same market.
The point is that surveys are showing that the iPhone 4 is so compelling that people are buying the iPhone 4s without waiting for their contract to expire so that they would become eligible for a new discount. This emphasizes that Apple is to a large extent competing with themselves.
Releasing a new version and people buying it, is not competing with yourself. That's called a desired response. They don't want you to buy the old ones, they want you to buy the new one because it costs more. If Apple had two different phones (not one phone with a newer version) then they'd be competing with themselves. Besides the point though, people have shown that the Galaxy Nexus, the Galaxy S II, and many other Android phones are also so compelling that people are buying them without waiting for their contract to expire and thus paying much more. The fact that people will pay more and buy an unsubsidized phone is not a differentiating factor, nor is it unique to the iPhone. Thus, I don't see what your point is. The iPhone is competing with various Android phones and currently, as a whole the Android platform is winning. This is unrelated to the original topic.
The original topic being, that every market is just a series of competitors copying each other's best features and then improving upon the products. To hinder this cycle in any way hinders competition, and that is precisely what Apple is trying to do with this ridiculous lawsuit against Samsung. There is no customer confusion, people are not buying Galaxy Tabs and thinking they are iPads. Thus the suit has no merit.
But while we're asking questions, what gives you the right to determine how a company choses to sell their products?
I don't care how they sell their products. But the right of a consumer to do what they like with property they own is paramount. If I am purchasing something, then I own it. End of story. What gives a company the right to tell me how to use my own property?
It's not like you did not know this before purchasing the product, or at the very worst after reading the licensing agreement and still able to return the product.
Most people actually do not know this, because they don't do their research. It's a deceptive market practice, which I'm pretty sure most people see as bad. It's called consumer protections. Not only that, but I'd have to pay a restocking fee for returning an iPhone (not that I'd ever purchase any Apple product). So I'd be out money just because a company thinks it can tell me how to use my own property and I disagreed.
It's the companies product and they can chose to sell it to whomever under what ever conditions they chose (or at least they would if there was actually a free market*). If you don't like those conditions then don't by the product
People are going to buy it regardless. They don't do their research or don't realize the damage or just don't care. Either way, Apple is making money hand over fist despite this. With more and more manufacturers going this way where they are trying to control how you use hardware you purchase, eventually the option will be to either suck it up or don't use technology. That's not a choice at all. This is why a "pure free market" doesn't work. Companies will do whatever they can to milk more money out of consumers while restricting them in more ways. There's a reason why consumer protections exist and are necessary.
Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.
