Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 16:36 UTC
Legal Today's "the day after". The day after Apple started a patent war with HTC and Google. Today, we have statements from both HTC and Google, and a number of other people have weighed in as well as to the possible ramifications of Apple's lawsuit.
Permalink for comment 412214
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Which history?
by dragos.pop on Thu 4th Mar 2010 14:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Which history?"
dragos.pop
Member since:
2010-01-08

The other issue is Google. Google sat on Apple's board and innovated from the board room. What Schmidt did is tantamount to corporate espionage. You dont sit on a companies board, setup sharing agreements to suit yourself and then take what you have learned and compete against the company you were responsible for helping guide. From encouraging Webkit to be open sourced and then using it for the basis of Chrome and saying look how much faster we are than them, when you are on the board of "them"? WTF? Google, do no evil? Really?


Very bad example.
1) Webkit is a fork of khtml. This means that KDE people developed it AS OPENSOURCE, apple just forked it. So Apple just took it for granted.
2) Nokia and Google also contribute to it. Nokia was the first to port it to smartphones.

A lot of OS X (and IPhone OS) code is based on opensource code. Most of it BSD, so apple didn't even contribute back. So a lot of development money and time not spent.

About inovations: those are not so new and original, MS invested money in multitouch (remember Surface), while apple bought those software inovations.
Also WM was the first OS on touchphones.

Hardware wise, hardware manufactures invented the capacitive screen, that allowd apple to create the software. That was the revolution.

Plus, apple also took nokia's patents for granted and didn't want a patent agreement.

And finaly, it is not about multitouch, it is about other "special effects" (ex: minimize animation) or about comunication with hardware (ex: to stop the screen when the phone is on the ear). Most of this should not be accepted as patents by a sane patent process, they are to obvious.

Reply Parent Score: 2