There has been a lot of Apple talk on the forums as of late. I was putting together a piece on Apple and innovation. I, personally, believe that Apple borrowed or stole most of its "inventions". They are really good at spotting interesting technology, cloning it, and making it better (usually).
While researching, a brand new article popped up on Reuters (as if on cue). The National Cheng Kung University in Taiwan is suing Apple. They claim that Siri is infringing on two voice-to-text related patents, one from 2007 and one from 2010.
"We filed that lawsuit in the Texas court because it processes faster and its rulings are usually in favor of patent owners and the compensations are usually higher." -Yama Chen, legal manager of National Cheng Kung
They said the amount they will seek will be based on the number of Siri enabled devices Apple had sold.
This could be bad news for Apple. They were just forced to pay $60 million to Proview in Shenzhen over the use of the name iPad.
In my personal opinion, the patent wars needs to stop. It truly stifles innovation. Patent logos, slogans, branding, etc. Just leave the software alone. It's about time for some reform.
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks agoI also think these patents are stupid. If we can't get rid of them completely we should at least make them timed-exclusive. So a company can only keep something proprietary for 2 or 3 years then it's fair game. I say that because, at the same time, if a company spends billions of R&D money on something, it'd also be unfair for someone to just pop up and make a ton of profit off their hard work. Which is one of the things I think Tim Cook was saying. He was tired of Apple doing all the dirty work then everyone just coming out with their "me too" devices.
Let's not lie to ourselves, how many touchscreen phones were there before the iPhone? Then compare that to how many there were after it.
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks agothe whole reason behind the patant is that a company wanting to use the technology can pay the company who has already spent billions in R&D to use what they have developed.
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks agoExcept for when they don't lisence it or just troll with it. A timed patent would eliminate that.
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks agoYeah... but there needs to be a line... I mean, Apple put a patent on "lists"... like lists of information (there is a little more to it than that, but not much)... That didn't take any R&D. It's just CSS.
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks agoPatents do have what is called a 'term', like the 'timed-exclusive' suggestion you make. Right now in the US, it's 20 years after the filing date. Sadly, we like to see our gadgets renewed more frequently than that, so it seems like those 20 years are forever. (Windows 95 isn't even that old yet)
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks agoThere were MANY touch screen phones out before the iPhone. Also, Apple didn't innovate the new touch technology, they didn't even innovate the "multi touch" technology, they bought a company that had already done the R&D, and minimalized it to maximize profits.
The new touch screens were already well into development, when the iPhone was released, along with better CPUs and better cellular data networks.
"Let's not lie to ourselves, how many touchscreen phones were there before the iPhone? Then compare that to how many there were after it."
This is like saying: "Look how many game consoles were around before the NES and after."
Even though The Atari came before the Sega which came before the NES. Sometimes the late adopters in the manufacturing business get a better deal, because they are using tried and true tech, that is cheaper when they get into the game, and they spend more of their time and money on areas they wouldn't have been able to devote resources if they hadn't stepped on the backs of giants.
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks agoyo son why dont you post in here: http://teksyndicate.com/news/2012/08/02/name-something-apple-invented-their-own-and-win-steelseries-gaming-mouse?page=2
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks agoSoftware patents are incredibly stupid, most nations don't have it.
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks agoAs much as I hate silly patent lawsuits, I love to see Apple getting affected by this idiocy they do every day.
Also.. The pun-- It still hurts my soul
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks agoone thing i thank apple did invent and has the right to patent is the magnetic charger but they will not share that with anyone.
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks agoif everyone in the tech community shared technology would evolve faster and we can all enjoy :)
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks agoI'm so sick of seeing the words Apple and sued in the same sentence lol.
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks agoPersonally i see patents as away for a company to have a " monopoly ". Becasue if you want that feature, look, or even software you have to get that device.
I.E. I want apple OSX (I really do not want it.) well if you make one apperently you get sued becasue it can only be one apple computers. So now you are limited to buying Apple Overpriced devices that have not very good specs for the price...
And for one I would have to say if patents are going to play a big part in what a customer wants / brand has it, i will stand for if you are not allowed to have it or pay a fee for it make the fee for other companies small like say like 5% of the product sells value. So in this case lets says Asus (one of the companies i love SO much [Yes i am a Asus Fan-MAN!]) wants to have the unibody design and the laptop sells for $1,200 apple for having the patent get a free $60 for just having the patent. and i know this would just drive up prices on computers if you dont mkae your own but it would help stop companies from putting out what they want too. (And the product actually has to go to court in order for the Other company to get money (Apple Vs. Asus) from selling the product so this way a company doesnt just go up to anther and say "oh, hey thats my pantent and the other says no it isn't and blah blah blah blah. then they go to court and spend MORE money fighting it then they would have made off the patent.
Again this is just my thoughts and yes you can disagree and i wont personally care at all.
I would just like it to be even so IF a company puts out another company still gets money for the design, sofware, look.
whilte the patent hold may still have no control over his or her design they still get free money for make it if provent it is his or her.
Instead of the patent holder being able to take the company or person to court and paying out ALOT.
and yes i can see some flaw in that but it is just a short thing about it.
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks agoI read that CERN (owners of the imfamous LHC) were the first to invent touchscreen technology somewhere in 1977
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks agoYou know I read that too, somewhere back in 2007. I have the literature somewhere around my house, if I can dig it up and scan it I'll do it. Smartest people in the world in one place, yeah they're 30-40 years ahead of what we peons have :P
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks agoWasn't Apples Face Time suppose to be open source when it came out? What happened to it?
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks agoNot sure if anyone has seen this, but there is a pretty interesting article up about Samsung saying that the design of the iphone was ripped off from Sony...
http://allthingsd.com/20120726/apples-iphone-has-sony-style-says-samsung/
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks ago"Patents prevent a man from using his invention even though all the property is his and he has not stolen the invention, either explicitly or implicitly, from the first inventor."-Rothbard
I think patents should be removed because they remove competition and prevent innovation. If an inventer files for a patent he/she no longer has to improve the invention. Also no other company can try to create their own product or improve on that invention.
- Log in or register to post comments
posted 9 months 3 weeks agoPatents were developed to help people who came up with an idea, and wanted to go to market with it, but then someone else saw it, copied said person's work, and then went to market fist. Claiming rights to it.
Patents were made, to protect the original creators. So companies, or other people would have to pay the OP for use of said technology, or idea.
Patents are a form of insurance that you WILL be paid for your work if somone tries to steal your work without giving you due compensation.
People who talk of getting rid of patents, give way to many companies, just looking other's shoulders, and stealing work of hard working people who genuinely SHOULD be protected.
I learned all this in HISTORY CLASS in HIGHSCHOOL. It's a very good system. And honestly, Apple SHOULD pay if they stole technology from somewhere else. It's not fair, and the people who did the work should be compensated for their hard work.