[danny111]

Who grants a patent like this:

an intellectual property right that covers a device’s ability to carry out multiple source searches through a single interface.

Seriously, that is ridiculous. Might as well have had the first mobile company to patent the idea of a smart phone...

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by Ocassus)
Hmm...

I wonder why that happened?


Well lets think... What interface did Bill Gates tablet PC use? OH YEAH! A stylus. What OS did it use? Uhhhhhm I think it was a reaaaaaally slow version of windows, poorly optimised aswell. Was it well designed? No it was made out of plastic and had a notoriously terrible battery. Was it useful for ANYTHING? Well no, not really. It didn't serve its purpose as a mobile computer because it couldn't do what a netbook could do.

The iPad? Hmmm, the most advanced multitouch ever seen in the industry thusfar? A specific target niche between phone and laptop? A massive development base for their proprietary OS developing apps specifically for that device?

Hmm, the Microsoft Surface? Well all the GOOD things it takes as 'innovations' are taken directly from the Apple iPad, the only good 'innovation' that the iPad took from the tablet PC was a device with no keyboard and dominated by a screen (It still had buttons for cripes sake). The Surface hasn't really done anything brand new...

Whilst you're correct, and I've even argued the same points myself in other threads, the fact that you're creaming yourself over Apple is incredibly unsettling. Relax and calm down with the rhetoric. We know that Apple have came out with some great stuff, you don't need to jizz yourself inside out over it

[Ocassus]

(Original post by . . .)
Tesco is classified as a supermarket so yes it can be called a supermarket.

App store is a generic name to classify a stores that sells apps or application.

No it isn't, an APPLICATION store is a generic name to classify a store that sells apps or applications.

The App store is the name of Apples specific Application store that sells apps or applications.

'App' is Apples marketing term, deal with it.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Whilst you're correct, and I've even argued the same points myself in other threads, the fact that you're creaming yourself over Apple is incredibly unsettling. Relax and calm down with the rhetoric. We know that Apple have came out with some great stuff, you don't need to jizz yourself inside out over it

I get monumentally pissed off at people who argue out of their ass about this kind of thing though.

There are many legitimate criticisms to be leveled at Apples products, most of them come down to personal taste. If somebody says an Android is better for them personally because of its open source nature, I will have very little room to disagree. Its entirely rooted in the subjective experience. But essentially trying to prove an Apple product is objectively ****, mostly through contrivance and conjecture just generally reeks of someone who will do anything to be contrary.

[estel]

(Original post by danny111)
Who grants a patent like this:

Seriously, that is ridiculous. Might as well have had the first mobile company to patent the idea of a smart phone...

This particular patent isn't mobile specific at all, and there are numerous examples of likely prior art which, in any sane world, would see this patent struck down.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by danny111)
Who grants a patent like this:



Seriously, that is ridiculous. Might as well have had the first mobile company to patent the idea of a smart phone...

I wouldn't want to be a lawyer, it essentially is the nitpickiest thing in the world. But I will pick nits if people are trying to use said nits as illegitimate criticism.

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by Ocassus)
I get monumentally pissed off at people who argue out of their ass about this kind of thing though.

There are many legitimate criticisms to be leveled at Apples products, most of them come down to personal taste. If somebody says an Android is better for them personally because of its open source nature, I will have very little room to disagree. Its entirely rooted in the subjective experience. But essentially trying to prove an Apple product is objectively ****, mostly through contrivance and conjecture just generally reeks of someone who will do anything to be contrary.

Indeed. I actually agree. I'm an avid Android user, but elsewhere on another thread, a poster was actively lauding Jellybean as having 'blown iOS out of the water', whilst simultaneously claiming that Apple have in no sense innovated the consumer tech market whatsoever. Almost lost my wicker basket from the sheer ignorance.

I just can't stand overblown rhetoric or misleading statements. I'll gladly credit both systems because hey - I'm a tech fan, why should I disfavour one thing just because I like another? Peeps just need to cool is as far as I'm concerned!

[Yoko Ono]

(Original post by Ocassus)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-...&q=app&f=false

1985.

The only example of the usage of 'App' prior to that description of its software by Apple was infact by Atari which only used the term '.app' in its coding as a shortened form of .application, not as a public facing and marketable phrase. QED. Apple came up with 'App'.

Apple don't really have to worry about RIM, so I can probably guess why they don't care to take it further.

Oh God. If you want to search Google Books for publications that have the word app in them that vaguely resemble the way we use them today then I'll match you:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=k...DQ&redir_esc=y

Also from 1985.

Why don't Apple have to worry about RIM? Surely if it was so cut and dry and Apple invented the term, they could really damage a large competitor? And what about Amazon? Theirs is called the Appstore. Surely that's a flagrant breach of trademark. Or perhaps, as I've been saying all along, Apple have absolutely no claim to the word whatsoever.

[danny111]

(Original post by Ocassus)
I wouldn't want to be a lawyer, it essentially is the nitpickiest thing in the world. But I will pick nits if people are trying to use said nits as illegitimate criticism.

But this seems to me to be patenting ideas for patenting sake. Seems like "omg i have this idea, let me patent it real quick".

[. . .]

(Original post by Ocassus)
No it isn't, an APPLICATION store is a generic name to classify a store that sells apps or applications.

The App store is the name of Apples specific Application store that sells apps or applications.

'App' is Apples marketing term, deal with it.

You know what? I don't even care that much.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by Yoko Ono)
Oh God. If you want to search Google Books for publications that have the word app in them that vaguely resemble the way we use them today then I'll match you:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=k...DQ&redir_esc=y

October 1985, in addition, that doesn't look like marketing does it? Nevertheless, Apple used 'App' on July 1985 as a MARKETING PHRASE for Framework. The only people to use 'App' before Apple was Atari, who used it as a file extension. That doesn't constitute marketing though, therefore it can't be included in this argument.

Why don't Apple have to worry about RIM? Surely if it was so cut and dry and Apple invented the term, they could really damage a large competitor? And what about Amazon? Theirs is called the Appstore. Surely that's a flagrant breach of trademark. Or perhaps, as I've been saying all along, Apple have absolutely no claim to the word whatsoever.

I think you are conflating Apple suing someone about the use of their term and their actual right to the term. There are a myriad of reasons as to why Apple might not want to sue a company, it isn't as cut and dry as 'Its ours, we can sue you'.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by danny111)
But this seems to me to be patenting ideas for patenting sake. Seems like "omg i have this idea, let me patent it real quick".

Because otherwise someone else will steal it and you get nothing for it...

[Yoko Ono]

(Original post by Ocassus)
October 1985, in addition, that doesn't look like marketing does it? Nevertheless, Apple used 'App' on July 1985 as a MARKETING PHRASE for Framework. The only people to use 'App' before Apple was Atari, who used it as a file extension. That doesn't constitute marketing though, therefore it can't be included in this argument.

I think you are conflating Apple suing someone about the use of their term and their actual right to the term. There are a myriad of reasons as to why Apple might not want to sue a company, it isn't as cut and dry as 'Its ours, we can sue you'.

Oh wait, we're talking about marketing the term now? Well can you prove that they actually marketed the software called Mac App? Clue: it being talked about (when it was in Beta, no less) in a computer magazine does not count as marketing.

Apple is an extremely litigious company and if it can sue its competitors, it will. Can you give me a good reason why they wouldn't sue Amazon and RIM (both large competitors to Apple) if they owned the term 'app'?

[danny111]

(Original post by Ocassus)
Because otherwise someone else will steal it and you get nothing for it...

Yes, but surely this idea has to be extremely novel. I mean multiple searches from one interface, that's hardly genius.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by Yoko Ono)
Oh wait, we're talking about marketing the term now? Well can you prove that they actually marketed the software called Mac App? Clue: it being talked about (when it was in Beta, no less) in a computer magazine does not count as marketing.

Read that bit again, the magazine is not calling it an 'app', Apple is explicitly calling it that. A magazine is a piece of marketing material for a product, therefore it is marketing.

Apple is an extremely litigious company and if it can sue its competitors, it will. Can you give me a good reason why they wouldn't sue Amazon and RIM (both large competitors to Apple) if they owned the term 'app'?

Now you're just projecting your argument the way you see fit onto Apple. Yes, Apple is litigious in the sense that it does sue other companies, but other companies also frequently do the same. It is par for the course in the industry. However, there are plenty of cases where potential lawsuits have been overlooked, whether it be for partnership purposes, behind the scenes reasons or just a sheer lack of urgency in needing to take the opposing companies cash. Pretending you know the nuances of these MNCs and how they go about selecting their legal targets internally is highly presumptuous of you...

[Ocassus]

(Original post by danny111)
Yes, but surely this idea has to be extremely novel. I mean multiple searches from one interface, that's hardly genius.

its the little things that often make the big things possible.

[danny111]

(Original post by Ocassus)
its the little things that often make the big things possible.

Ok but then tell me this, how come there are several companies who can use touch screen technology? Surely someone patented touch screens?

[Ocassus]

(Original post by danny111)
Ok but then tell me this, how come there are several companies who can use touch screen technology? Surely someone patented touch screens?

Search me.

My guess is that certain types of touch screen patents exist. You couldn't just patent 'a screen where you use your hands to interface with the screen', you have to patent the mechanism of the system. Some systems use pressure sensors, others like Apple use conductive transistors others use magnets. So I guess multiple touch screen patents exist.

[Yoko Ono]

(Original post by Ocassus)
Read that bit again, the magazine is not calling it an 'app', Apple is explicitly calling it that.

Ah, I see, so simply mentioning a word in a magazine counts as marketing, does it? Well I suppose whoever posted this job vacancy in this magazine is the de facto owner of the term 'app' then.

Now you're just projecting your argument the way you see fit onto Apple. Yes, Apple is litigious in the sense that it does sue other companies, but other companies also frequently do the same. It is par for the course in the industry. However, there are plenty of cases where potential lawsuits have been overlooked, whether it be for partnership purposes, behind the scenes reasons or just a sheer lack of urgency in needing to take the opposing companies cash. Pretending you know the nuances of these MNCs and how they go about selecting their legal targets internally is highly presumptuous of you...

Why is Apple not suing Amazon, then? What partnerships do they have with them? It's funny that Apple has never successfully sued over someone else using the term 'app' ever, considering that they definitely own it because it was mentioned in passing in a magazine article from the 80s.

[danny111]

(Original post by Ocassus)
Search me.

My guess is that certain types of touch screen patents exist. You couldn't just patent 'a screen where you use your hands to interface with the screen', you have to patent the mechanism of the system. Some systems use pressure sensors, others like Apple use conductive transistors others use magnets. So I guess multiple touch screen patents exist.

So why doesn't Samsung just change 1 part of the code and it makes the search different, but still essentially the same?