Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [TeK] Apple can block competitors for 25 years
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[TeK] Apple can block competitors for 25 years - Page 17

post #161 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Najentus View Post
Having a significant market share does not mean your products should be copied. In the case of your example is people copied the architecture of SB and began selling them as their own Intel would have every right to sue.

As for why nobody else is in the business, it's a fool's errand of a business venture. The amount of money invested into making a new architecture to fit current standards and producing it in quantities to turn a profit would be an absolute crapshoot. It's like trying to start a car company today, unless you make something completely different (the Tesla for example) your chance to get into a market as saturated as cars while turning a profit is almost none. Patents in these cases protect the companies who designed the original products. While it's technically stifling the competition, it isn't doing it in a malicious manner, rather protecting your own inventions appear to be malicious.
Yeah, now it would be dumb but there used to be plenty of competitors, Intel pushed them all out with licensing fees and other issues. (eg. NEC, IBM, Cyrix, etc)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Najentus View Post
I don't see how a software (and console hardware) company can patent the idea of a box with an HDMI out port. Apple created the iPad from the ground up, yes they used other people's technologies, but that's like saying Dr. Pepper should be illegal because I hold a patent on 14 of the 53 flavors. The patent is not on parts, rather the amalgamation they have created, and the look that they have marketed, both of which are incredibly important to the sales of this product. It doesn't matter how vague you think the patent is, it's a legitimate patent. The patent cannot be used in any other context other than tablet PCs, regardless of what other people seem to be saying. Comparing other markets to the tablet market and saying a patent on looks is ridiculous, copy the look of any car in major ways and expect to get a lawsuit. Copy a Ferrari but put a Lamborghini's mirrors on it and use Ferrari's red and expect to get multiple lawsuits.

Patents on game content are very tricky and very hazy, I would suggest not using them in such a way. If you copy specific portions of a game in major ways (like Rock Band did) you SHOULD be able to protect your game from copies. However that was another failing of the patent system.
They didn't invent the idea of a tablet, nor the idea of a tablet with a touchscreen and rounded edges (The patent is literally for that) so how is it different? The analogy I used was pretty good as it could be only really used for consoles as well.

No matter how you spin it, this is a patent trolls patent, no different than the RAMBUS patents on certain DDR technologies that they didn't invent.

Seriously, you don't see Ford patenting the idea of a hatchback and asking for licensing fees for it, do you? That'd be just as dumb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twist86 View Post
You just explained the moto of 99.9% of the companies in the world. Intel is the same way and between the two they will destroy every competitor. Reason why no company should become to big. Google,Apple,Intel,and Microsoft should all be knocked down a few pegs.
This.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Najentus View Post
Just because you think it is invalid does not mean the court has thrown it out or invalidated the patent.


EDIT:
Also outside of the US (where this case is happening) first to file is used rather than first to invent, thus making Apple's patent valid internationally.
If the law would move a bit faster than a glacier, then it'd have never been applied and would already be invalidated, but law takes time as anyone would admit.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Powercolor Radeon HD7950 3GB @ 1150/1350 4x4GB G.Skill Ares 2000Mhz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 250GB Western Digital Black 1TB WD1002FAEX Seagate Barracuda 3TB ST3000DM001 Samsung Spinpoint EcoGreen 2TB 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Pioneer DVR-220LBKS Noctua NH-D14 Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Corsair AF140 Quiet Edition 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Arcitc Cooling Acclero Twin Turbo II Arch Linux x86-64, amdgpu BenQ G2220HD BenQ G2020HD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine III Year of the Snake, Cherry Blue Silverstone Strider Plus 600w CoolerMaster CM690 II Black and White SteelSeries Sensei Professional 
Mouse PadAudioOther
Artisan Hien Mid Japan Black Large ASUS Xonar DX NZXT Sentry Mesh 30w Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Powercolor Radeon HD7950 3GB @ 1150/1350 4x4GB G.Skill Ares 2000Mhz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 250GB Western Digital Black 1TB WD1002FAEX Seagate Barracuda 3TB ST3000DM001 Samsung Spinpoint EcoGreen 2TB 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Pioneer DVR-220LBKS Noctua NH-D14 Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Corsair AF140 Quiet Edition 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Arcitc Cooling Acclero Twin Turbo II Arch Linux x86-64, amdgpu BenQ G2220HD BenQ G2020HD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine III Year of the Snake, Cherry Blue Silverstone Strider Plus 600w CoolerMaster CM690 II Black and White SteelSeries Sensei Professional 
Mouse PadAudioOther
Artisan Hien Mid Japan Black Large ASUS Xonar DX NZXT Sentry Mesh 30w Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
post #162 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Najentus View Post
Just because you think it is invalid does not mean the court has thrown it out or invalidated the patent.


EDIT:
Also outside of the US (where this case is happening) first to file is used rather than first to invent, thus making Apple's patent valid internationally.
This person clearly don't know what prior art means.
What I have now
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 4Ghz Asus P6X58D-E MSI GTX 1070 Gaming Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 16GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
120 GB Samsung 840 Evo SSD 500 GB WD Blue 2 TB WD Green Venemous X P/P 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro Dell U2312HM Cooler Master Storm Quickfire TK Cherry MX Red Silverstone ST75F-P 
CaseMouseMouse PadOther
CM 690 ii Advance Roccat Kone Pure Optical Razer Destructor 2 Sennheiser HD25-1 II 
  hide details  
Reply
What I have now
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 4Ghz Asus P6X58D-E MSI GTX 1070 Gaming Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 16GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
120 GB Samsung 840 Evo SSD 500 GB WD Blue 2 TB WD Green Venemous X P/P 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro Dell U2312HM Cooler Master Storm Quickfire TK Cherry MX Red Silverstone ST75F-P 
CaseMouseMouse PadOther
CM 690 ii Advance Roccat Kone Pure Optical Razer Destructor 2 Sennheiser HD25-1 II 
  hide details  
Reply
post #163 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foolsmasher View Post
So you're saying that Apple didn't improve upon the way people interface with phones or tablet computers? That's a laugher.

The "ease of use" is one of the things that makes their products so great. Could you even imagine going back to using a stylus on your phone or tablet with some wonky half functioning OS? What they did is the definition of innovation.
They made the O/S for their iPods and that was an innovation, WHEN IT WAS MADE. Reusing that same innovation made back before 2006 does not make it innovative. It simply carries the wide familiarity from the iPod over to the iPhone and the iPad.

Stylus went out of style before iphones came out. It had to do with what technology could allow. Same goes for 'half-functioning' O/S.
Edited by FuNkDrSpOt - 8/16/11 at 8:43pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
post #164 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_beast View Post
Once again, your point is irrelevant. Patent law does not protect market share, it protects ideas. You cannot sue anyone because they release a product that is similar to your own unless your product is original. Apple's patent is based on a black rectangle with a screen and rounded corners - which had been done 15 years earlier. So their patent isn't valid, which makes the lawsuit a joke.

If TV manufacturers cannot patent black bezels on TVs and car manufacturers can't patent 4 road wheels and a steering wheel, why should Apple be able to patent a black rectangle?
You have yet to respond to this.



Also, I know people that can't tell a lot of cars/trucks apart from each other. A good example would the the first Mustangs. I use this example because Ford created the "Pony Car," thus created the pony car market. Chevy and Dodge soon followed with their pony cars, capitalizing on the market created by Ford's huge hit. Ford does not have a patent for a pony car. They looked very similar, and are easy to confuse by people who do not know a lot about cars.

Same deal again with the "retro-futuristic" design of the 2005 Mustang. It was a big success, and Chevy and Dodge soon brought back the Camaro and the Challenger, both of which had been discontinued due to lack of sales and enjoyed success after their revival with the "retro-futuristic" design. I use this example because it was a design, similar to Apple's patent which has nothing to do with technological developement. I know people that can't tell these 3 cars apart. That does not mean that Ford should sue them.

Similar things can be said about hot-hatches, roadsters, etc. Many types of car designs were out long before some company came around and released a product that shot the popularity of it up. Some may argue that Honda made the hot-hatch market what it is today, but they did not invent it. There are loads of sporty hatches in the market that share VERY similar design, but the technology inside them is COMPLETLY different.

Your turn.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K MSI P67A-G43 MSI GTX 460 Cyclone Ripjaws X 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
Vertex 2 WD Green ASUS Windows 7 
PowerCase
Antec TruePower New 750 HAF 922 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K MSI P67A-G43 MSI GTX 460 Cyclone Ripjaws X 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
Vertex 2 WD Green ASUS Windows 7 
PowerCase
Antec TruePower New 750 HAF 922 
  hide details  
Reply
post #165 of 191
i'm pretty sure samsung could come up with a device that doesn't look so similar to an Ipad.

Kindle, nook, motorola none of these US companies imitated Apple for their post iPad tablets. Acer design is not iPad like.

Design patents exist for a reason... why hire a designer when you can just crib from your competitors...



Oooh, apple makes a nice black version of their compact keyboard. This is HP copying bt you get the point.

Not to mention they shelved the galaxy 10 because their CEO needed to copy the Apple specs ever closer in the "redesign"
post #166 of 191
Well reasoned... but the car market is a mature market, different dynamics, wouldn't you say?

Apple created the tablet market, you can say redefined or whatever, but if you deny this youre daft.

Apple's design patent isn't for a rectangle with a screen, btw. Everyone who reads it can clearly know that say a, Kindle or TX2500z or name a zillion tablets pre iPad would be "non infringing".

all glass, rounded corners, sliver of metal etc.. all part of the design patent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mad0314 View Post
You have yet to respond to this.



Also, I know people that can't tell a lot of cars/trucks apart from each other. A good example would the the first Mustangs. I use this example because Ford created the "Pony Car," thus created the pony car market. Chevy and Dodge soon followed with their pony cars, capitalizing on the market created by Ford's huge hit. Ford does not have a patent for a pony car. They looked very similar, and are easy to confuse by people who do not know a lot about cars.

Same deal again with the "retro-futuristic" design of the 2005 Mustang. It was a big success, and Chevy and Dodge soon brought back the Camaro and the Challenger, both of which had been discontinued due to lack of sales and enjoyed success after their revival with the "retro-futuristic" design. I use this example because it was a design, similar to Apple's patent which has nothing to do with technological developement. I know people that can't tell these 3 cars apart. That does not mean that Ford should sue them.

Similar things can be said about hot-hatches, roadsters, etc. Many types of car designs were out long before some company came around and released a product that shot the popularity of it up. Some may argue that Honda made the hot-hatch market what it is today, but they did not invent it. There are loads of sporty hatches in the market that share VERY similar design, but the technology inside them is COMPLETLY different.

Your turn.
post #167 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectroManiac View Post
This person clearly don't know what prior art means.
First to file/invent is part of prior art patent law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_beast View Post
Once again, your point is irrelevant. Patent law does not protect market share, it protects ideas. You cannot sue anyone because they release a product that is similar to your own unless your product is original. Apple's patent is based on a black rectangle with a screen and rounded corners - which had been done 15 years earlier. So their patent isn't valid, which makes the lawsuit a joke.

If TV manufacturers cannot patent black bezels on TVs and car manufacturers can't patent 4 road wheels and a steering wheel, why should Apple be able to patent a black rectangle?
In the US's case when it comes to prior art the invention in mind has to have been reduced into practice. I don't see many tablet newspapers around, nor do I see any tablets around other than the iPad and the latest generation released post-iPad introduction. If a patent is not reduced into practice it is not given. Outside of the US, where this patent is being used, it is first to file, it appears Apple is first to file, therefore there patent is legitimate.

Boiling a patent down to "a black rectangle with rounded corners" sounds very generic, yet in the market the patent can be used, it provides a more specific explanation of what is and isn't an iPad. If you said "a black rectangular tablet with rounded corners and visible metal along the outer edge" you would be a bit closer.
Edited by Najentus - 8/17/11 at 8:51am
Indubitably Green
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 2600k L045B391 @4489.9 mhz Gigabyte P67A-UD4 2x EVGA SC GTX580 8GB G.Skill 1866 (2x4GB) 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + Spinpoint F3 1TB Windows 7 Pro VX2260vm Deck Legend ToXic 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair AX1200 BitFenix Colossus Window Naga Epic 
  hide details  
Reply
Indubitably Green
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 2600k L045B391 @4489.9 mhz Gigabyte P67A-UD4 2x EVGA SC GTX580 8GB G.Skill 1866 (2x4GB) 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + Spinpoint F3 1TB Windows 7 Pro VX2260vm Deck Legend ToXic 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair AX1200 BitFenix Colossus Window Naga Epic 
  hide details  
Reply
post #168 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellonwheelz View Post
Well reasoned... but the car market is a mature market, different dynamics, wouldn't you say?

Apple created the tablet market, you can say redefined or whatever, but if you deny this youre daft.

Apple's design patent isn't for a rectangle with a screen, btw. Everyone who reads it can clearly know that say a, Kindle or TX2500z or name a zillion tablets pre iPad would be "non infringing".

all glass, rounded corners, sliver of metal etc.. all part of the design patent.
Well, yes in that the car market has existed for longer, but the tablet market was not 100% created by Apple. Yes, they made it popular, but the market did exist before it. And my other argument about Ford, if you missed it in a previous post, still holds up to your argument. Ford brought automobiles to the masses by mass producing them and making them cheaper to manufacture. By comparison, there were tablets before the iPad, but they were a lot more expensive for something similar, partly due to the tech available at the time and its expense that would be necessary to function like a modern tablet. Someone (in another thread I believe) had linked a tablet from around 2006 that had similar specs to the iPad, but was over $2000. When the iPad came out, the tech required for that function was very much cheaper, and buying tablets was now a lot more justifiable (although, OT, I would still argue that they are useless for 90% of the people that buy them).

Other cars from that era looked very similar, wouldnt you say? The body of the cars were all very similar, and the layout. The market existed before Ford came along, but Ford made the market blow up, just as Apple did with tablets.


Now jumping to another level, I can compare the tablet market to the pony car market specifically. They are both markets within larger markets. A pony car is a specific type of car. The market for it did not exist before 1964 since it did not exist at all before then. The automobile market, however, did exist. Also, it received a rejuvenation in 2005 as in my previous post. A tablet is basically a light computer, sitting between a smartphone (without the phone) and a laptop. The electronics market has existed for years, but only recently has the technology to make this specific design of electronics viable (and affordablye) been available.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K MSI P67A-G43 MSI GTX 460 Cyclone Ripjaws X 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
Vertex 2 WD Green ASUS Windows 7 
PowerCase
Antec TruePower New 750 HAF 922 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K MSI P67A-G43 MSI GTX 460 Cyclone Ripjaws X 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
Vertex 2 WD Green ASUS Windows 7 
PowerCase
Antec TruePower New 750 HAF 922 
  hide details  
Reply
post #169 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
Stylus went out of style before iphones came out. It had to do with what technology could allow. Same goes for 'half-functioning' O/S.
Politely, how old are you?
post #170 of 191
If you look @ the prelaunch iPad press, there's lots of people predicting failure for the iPad, "oversized iPod touch", "useless" etc.

Whereas a car thats just like the other car, but much cheaper is I'd say a no brainer,

Apple put some thinking, bucks and technology into launching the iPad, and when you risk tons of $ into developing a product existing laws allow you to protect your IP investment.

As an owner of a pre iPad tablet, yes the iPad created the iPad and post iPad tablet market "100% and completely". If you disagree I'll accuse you of either intellectual dishonesty or cognitive blinders.

The iPad is more than fender flares and a V8 in a car. A mustang does exactly what other cars did before it.

iPads do things right now that no tablets ever did. Light, 8-10 hr battery, finger, etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mad0314 View Post
Well, yes in that the car market has existed for longer, but the tablet market was not 100% created by Apple. Yes, they made it popular, but the market did exist before it. And my other argument about Ford, if you missed it in a previous post, still holds up to your argument. Ford brought automobiles to the masses by mass producing them and making them cheaper to manufacture. By comparison, there were tablets before the iPad, but they were a lot more expensive for something similar, partly due to the tech available at the time and its expense that would be necessary to function like a modern tablet. Someone (in another thread I believe) had linked a tablet from around 2006 that had similar specs to the iPad, but was over $2000. When the iPad came out, the tech required for that function was very much cheaper, and buying tablets was now a lot more justifiable (although, OT, I would still argue that they are useless for 90% of the people that buy them).

Other cars from that era looked very similar, wouldnt you say? The body of the cars were all very similar, and the layout. The market existed before Ford came along, but Ford made the market blow up, just as Apple did with tablets.


Now jumping to another level, I can compare the tablet market to the pony car market specifically. They are both markets within larger markets. A pony car is a specific type of car. The market for it did not exist before 1964 since it did not exist at all before then. The automobile market, however, did exist. Also, it received a rejuvenation in 2005 as in my previous post. A tablet is basically a light computer, sitting between a smartphone (without the phone) and a laptop. The electronics market has existed for years, but only recently has the technology to make this specific design of electronics viable (and affordablye) been available.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [TeK] Apple can block competitors for 25 years