andy97

iTrader: (1)

They seem to have stolen the patented ideas

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/ap...ssor-1.3269840

Tidgy

nothing surprising tbh

JackClark

Stolen, LOL. Here's how these things go.

Company A thinks up something that might be be useful in the future, doesn't make anything of it just holds the thought but does spend 6 figures getting a patent.

Another company happens to have a vaguely similar idea, IBM, Apple and probably more, they've never heard of Company A let alone their idea. Company A waits 10 years then spends 6 figures trying to find anyone using something vaguely similar to what they thought up ten years ago then more cash taking it to court.

IBM paid up before court, Apple I hope will fight it, things just like this are crippling advancement and pillocks like you support it.

JackClark

Oh and the figures mentioned are what's being claimed not awarded and even so are a few hours profit for Apple. They're not going to court to save money, they're going to court to save your future and you should be thankful.

Tidgy

so apple vaguely use a similar idea, where as other companies copy apples ideas?

and apple don't put in speculative patents?

lmao jack you do give me a good giggle with yoru double standards

JackClark

You show me this companies products created from a patent they've enforced and I'll show you Apple's. See the difference?

Tidgy

you keep believing in your cult

JackClark

No really, show me an example.

mrtheedge2u2

Jack, regardless of what they do with the patent, the university own it. The patent office agreed with this and rejected Apples's petition to invalidate it. If Apple infringed this then they are fairly being punished for it.

I am sure Apple, samsung, Microsoft etc all own dormant patents that they would file over if someone else infringed them.

JackClark

I fully agree, it's a rubbish situation, they have every right to defend something they thought up and put to paper 20 years ago before it's use could realisticly have been imagined.

Apple also have the right to say no to this bull**** and I'm glad they do. I'm sure Google would rather it was them rather than Microsoft that makes money from Android, it's ridiculous.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Didn't you hear, Microsoft and Google decided to dismiss all litigation without license. So those companies that took a license will soon be cancelled

JackClark

Didn't you hear, Microsoft charges licensing fees for Android that are more than Google makes. It may have swung slightly but it's still astonishing.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Google doesn't monetise Android, their income stream is by having billions of phones tablets so advertising can be sold

JackClark

They sell everything you do and still make less than Microsoft.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Jack you need to keep up with current events

Microsoft were alleged to making $1bn in 2013/14 from android, the majority of that from Samsung, being the biggest Android manufacturer, However once Microsoft took over Nokia officially, Samsung refused to pay royalties. This case has now been settled with a cross royalty agreement, basically meaning zero or little money is handed over. So your point is outdated

JackClark

So what you're saying is Microsoft make more money from Android than Google do. It doesn't matter if that amount is cancelled out by money coming the other way, probably dodges a load of tax.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I liked the bit where Jack said Apple didn't infringe knowing they were doing so...yet had previously tried to have the existing patent set aside.

Tidgy

He seems to think apple are totaly innocent, every single one of the companies are at it lol

JackClark

I was being super vague, I'm sure you know what I was getting at. Anyhow, enjoy watching the case.