Michal Marek Apple has received another patent, there is nothing unusual about this announcement. The company from Cupertino owns a huge number of patents and their number is constantly increasing. Apple, among 25 others, received an absolutely crucial patent. It is often referred to as the "mother of all software patents" on foreign servers. This is a weapon that the company can theoretically take down the entire competition in the field of smartphones.
Patent number 8223134 hides in itself "Methods and Graphical Interfaces for Displaying Electronic Content and Documents on Portable Devices" and will probably be used as a breakthrough weapon in the fight against plagiarists. It covers the way in which Apple graphically solves, for example, the display of the telephone "application" itself, the e-mail box, the camera, the video player, widgets, the search field, notes, maps and the like. Above all, the patent concerns the multi-touch concept of the user interface itself.
These features, now patented by Apple, are included in virtually all phones and tablets with the Android or Windows Phone operating system. Naturally, the patent is not liked by the users of these phones and they are making their position known. Android users think that Apple should not destroy its competition through court proceedings, but through fair competition. The market should be controlled by whoever has the best products and not the most expensive lawyers.
However, it is understandable that Apple wants to protect its intellectual property. As the site notes Patently Apple:
Back in 2007, Samsung, HTC, Google, and everyone else in the smartphone industry didn't have a comparable device with similar features to Apple's iPhone. They didn't have the solutions that Apple brought to the market and made phones truly smartphones.
…the only way competitors could compete with Apple was to copy their technology, despite knowing full well that more than 200 patents had been filed for the iPhone.
However, the fact remains that the smartphone of the modern era in the concept of these brands is clearly based on the philosophy of the iPhone. Apple is aware of this fact and tries to protect its products. He learned from the mid-nineties, when he lost a series of court cases with Microsoft over the appearance of the operating system. Apple very carefully and piecemeal patented key parts of the system. It is logical that the management of the Californian corporation does not want Cupertino to be a center of research and profit to go to companies that only take over the fundamental ideas.
Of course, many are of the opinion that it is not in the consumer society's interest to let litigation hold back technological progress. However, Apple must at least partially defend itself. So let's believe that in Cupertino, at least the same energy and resources will be invested in the research of new technologies that facilitate the everyday life of ordinary people, as are invested in these legal wrangles. Let's hope Apple continues to be an innovator and not just a protector of long-ago innovations.
Mega-thick-cruel-tight!!! :from
But what? They designed, realized, patented. That's what the patents are from. And honestly, who of you wouldn't protect your attack/product of such dimensions if possible?!
If the competition wasn't stupid, it would piss off the lawyers and the courts, admit that it is copying and propose some poor solution to Apple, perhaps in the form of a license fee (he should lose that Thursday or 50 cents per device...).
So no one has figured this out yet! Aren't you a genius? :) :) :)
But that's how it works, see Microsoft et al. I just don't understand why the others make such a big deal out of it (Google, Samsung...)
Yes, that's exactly what it's about. The competition doesn't want to pay for Apple's ideas. And like it or not, Android has figuratively stolen Apple's car, and Apple wants nothing more than to pay for it. Apple also uses the patents of its competitors, it just pays for them, and if it doesn't, the competition will also sue it and it has to come to an agreement. It's simple, there's no need to scare people and make Apple a brake on progress.
He arrived, ripped off, expelled...
got on, got off.
I don't understand how there isn't a patent for the appearance of the television, the remote control for the television and the layout of the buttons, etc., the appearance of the car, and the fact that it has a steering wheel, pedals, etc. If this had been dealt with before, everything would be incredibly expensive due to lawsuits and nothing really develops much. Today, it is simply impossible to compete other than legally and patently. It's disgust. A patent for the appearance of watches, knives, etc. It's the same crap as what the likes of Apple come up with. I believe that what Apple is currently patenting, he himself copied somewhere, modified it a bit and now has it as his own. In no time, they will patent the appearance of him, on which he climbs from behind. The current world is just disgusting. Moral bottom. Nothing against patents, but this is really too much. UFF. So I was relieved :)
Hi, I remember very well the time when the first iphone came out. I had an HTC Tytn at the time and looked at it like an apparition from another world. Suddenly, my hi-tech machine seemed so outdated that I wondered why I was still using it.
in the following months came the HTC sense, which was a weak concoction, but also the first answer to the iPhone.
Until then, something like gestures. Pinch to zoom full web browser were things so unthinkable that I fully understand Apple protecting their ideas.
Pinch to Zoom was something that completely blew me away. Something so natural that no one had thought of it before. Today every android has it, why? because Apple invented it.
The way of creating folders on Android is also copied from Apple, swipe an icon on another icon to create a folder. Apple also came up with it.
No one is against licensing this idea, but suddenly Android wouldn't be "so cheap".
We could talk here for a long time, but if I come up with something, and it is as revolutionary as the technology of the first iPhone, which is still used today, then Apple has every right to ask for money for its ideas.
They have patents for all of this, but patents have a limited validity period and all the mentioned technologies have already expired (I suspect it's a maximum of 24 years, but I'm not 1898% sure about this). For example, Nikola Tesla obtained a patent for a television remote control in 100. Basically, the only difference compared to today is that the current patents are still valid and therefore it is not possible to use patented technologies without a license. In fact, nothing prevents anyone from finding their own way or trying to negotiate a license to use it. As an example of my own path, I consider, for example, the WebOS system, which in my opinion is very successful, but at the same time it does not look like a copy of iOS and follows a completely different path with a completely different control philosophy. Personally, I would not see the current situation as a moral bottom, but as a fairly common part of every era. It's just that we haven't experienced the time when they were probably similarly arguing over the patents for cars, televisions, radios, planes, ships or practically anything else. You just have to either wait the appropriate number of years and use it only then, or make an agreement with whoever has the patent. It worked that way even XNUMX years ago and I don't see the concept as something that can be considered outdated.
Complete agreement. Otherwise, I don't understand how anyone can challenge Apple in this regard and want a fair competition when they themselves are fighting unfairly. They don't admit anything and make money off other people's ideas.
I myself know very well what it means to invent something and to come up with the idea ;) logically, I can't name what it is, but that's the point... I completely agree with Apple that it patents its inventions and that it defends them with lawsuits, moreover, it depends on the quality and it doesn't reflect the innovation of their products, at least not yet, so if it will be hindered by the innovation of the competition, I don't care at all, but I understand that users of competing products don't like it ;) so don't use stolen ideas and go after the original.
it applies mainly here...that if it is not tangible (programming, graphics) then people don't want to pay. If I could get behind every sentence I heard from a client "that's a couple of clicks, you had it in just a moment" ... then I'd be a millionaire. People here don't understand this and I send you photos from google and wonder why they have to pay for photos from the photobank... when they can be downloaded for free and they don't talk about fonts :o)
Yes, that tells me something ;) that's how it is, unfortunately. The fact that it looks simple is not because it is simple, but because someone is simply an expert and knows how to do it.
I'm really curious when Apple will patent the big bang
How is it possible that someone will grant such a patent!!! This really smells like a huge problem. Apple will now be able to claim almost anything that happens on the screens of any smartphones and tablets. This shouldn't have happened... To hell with Apple!
Apple just claims all the ideas and if someone wants to use them, they should pay for them the person who invested massively in the development of these ideas. It's called a license, and it's commonplace in technology. But the competition does not want to pay, and this is a real risk for further development. I wonder what smartphones would look like today if Apple hadn't come up with the iPhone...
I understand that when someone invents something, they have the right to ask for money for it, but at the same time, let them maintain at least a little self-respect and not patent every trick, then it can be seen that they are having fits. I liked Apple in the days when it invested that money in development and not in lawsuits.
That is a treasonous claim. The problem is the perception of the patent in the context of the wrong time. Virtually all of the patents currently at issue in Apple's case were filed a long time ago. Like this one in 2007 (the most common year for iPhone-related stuff). Well, in the last 5 years, something has changed quite significantly. For example, there were smartphones even before the iPhone and they weren't bad (I used a Palm Treo 650 myself). Even with the iPhone, I see inspiration in many things from PalmOS. But I also remember that when I bought an iPhone in 2007, I was completely blown away by the fact that, for example, there was no need to use a stylus, everything was size-optimized finger control and a lot of such small things. And these are exactly the things that Apple has patented.
Otherwise, the whole problem is that during the 5 years of the approval process for these patents, neither Google nor anyone else spoke against the approval of these patents and gave any reasons why they should not be approved. They definitely knew that Apple filed patent applications for everything, so why didn't they do it? Instead, they took quite a bit of inspiration from the iPhone, and years later it turns out that maybe it wasn't the happiest. Personally, I think that Google should have focused on creating something new, not just redesigning a competing system and then cursing that a lot of functionality is patented. Others are doing it (WinPhone, WebOS - both of them show at first glance that it was not a matter of making an iOS clone, which certainly cannot be said about Android in the first versions), so why not them? It is also interesting that, for example, there are no major problems between Microsoft and Apple, and if they do, they come to a reasonable agreement.