Apple: Android's framework inspired by creator's time at Apple

[Archean]

Apple is continuing to fight HTC over Android and have pulled an ace out of their sleeve - Andy Rubin, a.k.a. the man behind Android, worked at Apple when the company was working on a key patent. A patent that Android might be infringing on. The patent in question was filed in the distant 1994 (no iPod, iPhone, iOS or anything at the time) but seems directly related to processing data in real time. Andy Rubin was a low-level engineer working on the patent for Apple at the time. Android may be infringing on this patent and working around it would require changes that go very deep - maybe as deep as the kernel itself. For now, Apple is only bringing this up to point out that HTC weren’t completely truthful in their statements (they said Rubin's career started in General Magic). Here's the quote from Apple's statement:

Somehow I always feel that Android's looks are a 'cheap imitation' of iOS's interface, now this isn't directly related, but couple this with the Oracle's lawsuit against Google/Android (which many insiders believe that Google is almost certain to loose heavily) ....... I guess Android's troubles probably are just starting.

 

[Pyree]

Sigh.

Sooner or later, Apple will sue Chinese for inventing paper pad.

 

[Pyree]

Sure their product is successful and popular, they are also nice to use. But it doesn't give them the right to sue everyone and impose ban on other company's product. Apple's original iphone and ipad are by no means new concept, touch screen device and tablet computer exists long before them. But it is exactly as you said, their product is interesting; Apple makes good interface to make them fun to use, raising interest for the consumers for touchscreen phones and tablets on the market. When there is enough demand for touch screen screen product, many phone company reboot their lineup of touch screen product, some have to invent them. Ever heard of convergent evolution? Look it up. Although they started differently, to achieve the same level usability, they have to appear similar on the outside, while what is underneath is different. You wouldn't want a touch screen phone that is triangle and need to use your toes to control wouldn't you? I am not saying no one copied Apple, but I don't think the big brands did, and copying is limited to shanzhai phones only.

Apple's action is a tactic to disrupt competitor's momentum. They are doing this because they though they should own exclusive right to sell touch interface device (why shouldn't they think so, they popularize it and it is only natural they protect their interest). However, the world won't work that way. Imagine Ford, a company popularizing family automobile can ban other company from producing car because it has 4 wheels and looks boxy, what kind of world we will be living today?

Edit: And why was the comment from another user before this post deleted, I was having a discussion and now it look like I am talking to myself.

 

[Archean]

I have no idea, who deleted that comment and why. Must be some moderator, and it is always a good idea at least to give reason why comment x was erased.

I remember when I saw the original iphone/iOS interface first time around, I felt that Apple nicked some ideas from SPB shell for WinMo. Similarly Android definitely has nicked many ideas from other platforms. But that doesn't mean they can copy / paste whatever they want to and cook their own OS, then give it for free, and make money from ads / or other means. That is the reason why Big G is in-trouble with Oracle and many other companies.

 

[Pyree]

Well, original idea is hard to come by these day. Mac OS, Window and Ubuntu all have the same drag, minimize and close theme GUI controlled by mouse action and I don't see they are suing each other.

There are only so many ways you can do the same thing efficiently and they are bound to find the same solution, from different approach, to the problem.

 

[Archean]

Similarities in interface aside as you pretty much nailed the issue there, but copying of others' IP is totally different thing, IMO it amounts to broad day light robbery.

Having said this, the patents business is in shambles as well, with mindless registration of useless patents. I wonder if someone come to them and tell them 'I have a unique way of farting' ....... will they register it as a valid patent ?

 

[Pyree]

Yes, the Apple lawsuit for copying design and look is total ***. This case is still on trial in the court and we will have to wait for the jury and judge to decide. I have to agree with you. Patent law is broken because you can patent something with very loose definition without much technical detail, which means many inventions in the future may breach your IP, even if the other person is doing something different.

 

[Archean]

Exactly, by the way I was referring to Java related Oracle's lawsuit against Big G, I suspect Big G will loose it big time, and probably end up having to:

1- Re-write / Re-work many aspects of the OS
2. Probably force to pay royalties

Now IF I was a regulator, I would definitely be looking to break Google into two entities:

1. For Mobile products /OS
2. Search company

Similarly, for MS:

1. For OS/Office
2. For Mobile + everything else

I think when a corporation grows into such large entities, it no longer serves the interest of people, but rather is driven by its own agenda.

 

[Pyree]

But the point of a company is not to serve the people. That is the job of the government and the public servant (and they are not doing it right no matter which country you are in). A company needs only answer to their share holders and if they are not monopolizing the market or price fixing, you cannot sue them for antitrust and break it up because of capitalism free market.

It is something that will never bee fixed, capitalism or socialism or any other form of government or company past, present and future will always be greedy, try to copy, lazy etc because it is human nature.

 

[Archean]

That is a very fair argument. But problem lies in that 'greed' part of this system, there is absolutely no 'limit' on how much a profit is 'right / ethical' as such. Hence, when the corporations grow larger, so is their greed + deceit.

I don't buy this 'small government is good none-sense' it needs to be right-sized to have ability to effectively govern. Markets simply can't 'self regulate', funny thing is many fools haven't learned this despite several bubbles since 1980s Reaganomics inception, starting from Loans and Savings to 2007's financial meltdown. Hence, it is the government's responsibility to enforce such laws/rules/policies to protect its citizens from such malpractices.

Anyway its another debate for another time, I am at work and soon will be heading for a meeting. So will check back later on this . Regards