Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Aug 2011 21:38 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y The Google-Microsoft patent war of words is continuing. Yesterday, Google (rightfully so, in my book) accused Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle partaking in an organised patent attack against Android, instead of competing on merit, claiming that they bought up Novell's and Nortel's patents solely to attack Android and its device makers. Microsoft struck back, claiming Google was offered to join in on the bids for the Novell patents, but rejected the offer. Google has now responded to this accusation - and to make matters even more confusing, Microsoft responded back. A public shouting match between two powerful parties? Count me in!
Thread beginning with comment 483781
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
deppbv78
Member since:
2008-06-29

But, patent documents not just detail an idea.. it also details a particular execution approach as an implementation of the idea. I'm not sure of somebody will get sued if they have a different approach to achieve the same idea.

Simple case we can consider is of pinch-to-zoom. Apple did not get patent for pinch-to-zoom or multitouch. They have a patent for a specific implementation involved two fingers on a viewport to zoom in a specific content displayed in the viewport. How is that not specific? If somebody wants to implement multitouch to zoom, then they should come up with their own idea not just copy what Apple innovated. BTW, I'm not arguing that Apple invented multitouch or pinch-to-zoom. Its just that they patented a specific procedure.

Reply Parent Score: 1

przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

Why not? There is no legal barrier for that, and court is expensive. So why somebody want start company (legal), buy some patents (legal), go to X different companies and signal that they should pay licenses (legal), or will go to court with them (legal).

If company make license costs below legal costs, than some companies will go for it! Just to save time and money.

All legal, even though patent was rubbish.

Reply Parent Score: 1

dragos.pop Member since:
2010-01-08


Simple case we can consider is of pinch-to-zoom. Apple did not get patent for pinch-to-zoom or multitouch. They have a patent for a specific implementation involved two fingers on a viewport to zoom in a specific content displayed in the viewport. How is that not specific? If somebody wants to implement multitouch to zoom, then they should come up with their own idea not just copy what Apple innovated. BTW, I'm not arguing that Apple invented multitouch or pinch-to-zoom. Its just that they patented a specific procedure.


Think again:
pinch-to-zoom - it is the most natural move a person could make with 2 fingers (or more) to zoom on a small screen. If you invented multitouch and you wanted to show how to zoom, you would do the same. Because it is what you do in reality when you want to make something bigger.
Of course, if Apple had a patent on how to recognize this gesture, than we are talking...
So I could argue that apple patented a very natural gesture (I might loose this argument since it's hard to prove, but than again, with an easy experiment I could win).

Reply Parent Score: 0

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

If you actually look at the patents Apple is asserting against HTC, you'll see that a lot of them are ridiculously broad. Though Apple's patents seem to be the most specific ones of all that are in this patent sh***storm.

A patent should be a document that is a guide to implementing. None. I really mean, none of the patents(in these cases) could be read as a guide for implementation after it expires. There is just not enough info in them to use it like a schematic, like most hardware patents have. Their last one that I read, was Apple's document scrolling patent. And I would have to spend as much time in understanding and implementing it as I would have done it without reading the patent - it's lacks detail that much.

I don't believe that pinch-to-zoom is patented, though.

Reply Parent Score: 2