[QUOTE=toaster468;33950693][b]HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU PATENT SOMETHING SOMEONE ELSE IS ALREADY USING[/b][/QUOTE]
That's thanks to the America Invents Act that Obama signed into law, it switches around the way patents work. Now the rights to the invention go to the first person to file a patent rather than the first person to invent it.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33978861]That's thanks to the America Invents Act that Obama signed into law, it switches around the way patents work. Now the rights to the invention go to the first person to file a patent rather than the first person to invent it.[/QUOTE]What the FUCK? That can't be real, no, I can't believe that.
[QUOTE=Squad;33966084]Also. People trying to defend Apple. It is all fine and dandy when Apple is claiming patents on legitimate things. But they tried to say that Samsung Galaxy with rounded corners was too much like the iphone. YOU CAN'T PATENT ROUNDED FUCKING CORNERS. I have never seen a phone with perfect 90 degree to a point, that would stab you to death, corners...[/QUOTE]
Okay, now you're just getting sensationalist. Apple sued them because the phone's design was very similar to the iPhone 3GS, not solely because of the rounded corners.
[editline]31st December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;33978865]What the FUCK? That can't be real, no, I can't believe that.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Act[/url]
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33978886]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Act[/url][/QUOTE]Damn Obama sure does his job well.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33978861]That's thanks to the America Invents Act that Obama signed into law, it switches around the way patents work. Now the rights to the invention go to the first person to file a patent rather than the first person to invent it.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit I just read up on this, this is real.
Wow I had no idea how fucked up the states had got. This, the military detainment clauses, SOPA... Man you guys are going full corporate police state.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;33979007]Holy shit I just read up on this, this is real.
Wow I had no idea how fucked up the states had got. This, the military detainment clauses, SOPA... Man you guys are going full corporate police state.[/QUOTE]Because fuck the little guy.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33978861]That's thanks to the America Invents Act that Obama signed into law, it switches around the way patents work. Now the rights to the invention go to the first person to file a patent rather than the first person to invent it.[/QUOTE]
Don't you love our President?
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;33981312]Don't you love our President?[/QUOTE]
This law kind of makes sense though. It prevents patent trolls from claiming credit for something years after it's been patented.
apple did not make the first multitouch device the first laptop with a touch pad had it
IBM made the first multitouch screens
[QUOTE=Squad;33966084]Multi-touch technology began in 1982, when the University of Toronto's Input Research Group developed the first human-input multi-touch system. The system used a frosted-glass panel with a camera placed behind the glass. When a finger or several fingers pressed on the glass, the camera would detect the action as one or more black spots on an otherwise white background, allowing it to be registered as an input. Since the size of a dot was dependent on pressure (how hard the person was pressing on the glass), the system was somewhat pressure-sensitive as well.[2]
In 1983, Bell Labs at Murray Hill published a comprehensive discussion of touch-screen based interfaces.[6] In 1984, Bell Labs engineered a touch screen that could change images with more than one hand. In 1985, the University of Toronto group including Bill Buxton developed a multi-touch tablet that used capacitance rather than bulky camera-based optical sensing systems.[2]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch[/url][/QUOTE]
Sorry I should have been more specific. I meant more a touchscreen like Apple's (i.e. can sense hover events too)
[editline]4th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;33978745]Really? If Apple was so successful, why was Microsoft ordered by the government to bail them out of trouble when the company nearly met its end producing shitty desktops? They made a few leaps in very early OS development after Xerox. They quickly fell behind IBM and Microsoft once they hit the GUI OS market. But hey, what am I talking about, an apple fanboy would never remember OS/2 and its separate kernal and management options. And yeah, Apple paid for the Xerox OS the same way Microsoft paid for DOS, and if you're going to sit there and tell me those purchases were totally legit, I'm going to have to laugh at you.
[/quote]
I'm not denying Apple fell apart in the ninties, (when OS/2 came out and Window really hit it's stride) but the Macintosh was released in 1984, 10 years before any of that stuff, when Apple was still a huge company thanks mainly to the Apple II. Apple was a big company when it launched the Macintosh. And yes they paid Xerox. You can argue that Xerox got screwed over on the deal (much like 86DOS or whatever the hell MS DOS was called), but you can only say that in hindsight. Xerox was selling their STAR system, but no one bought it. Apple managed to make the idea they bought a success. Moaning about it now is like finding out someone at school is now a millionaire and you saying it isn't fair that they are rich and you aren't
[quote]And don't kid yourself, iPhone hardware is a joke. It was the iOS and the Apple brand name that brought in customers, not some magical revolutionary hardware (which already existed).[/quote]
It was magical thanks to the software. RIM famously didn't believe the iPhone was possible, and that Apple faked the presentation, and they were actually making smartphone hardware at the time, so I'm guessing Apple did something clever.
[quote]Because Apple's profits are still growing at the old rates right? Nevermind the fact that every company producing Android phones has been rising steadily and Android has scooped up massive market share.[/quote]
You know marketshare doesn't pay the bills right? What's better for a company? To sell 100,000 phones at $100 profit, or sell $1 million phones at $1 profit? i'm sure Apple would like marketshare too, but when the Android marketshare is split mainly across 2 or 3 competitors as it is, Apple will still (and is) make far more money with their one phone than any Android manufacturer will. It's the same as PCs. I'm sure Apple would love to have greater marketshare, but currently they make more money per PC sold than anyone else, despite being in a big recession. And the have sold more computers with bigger and bigger margins for the last 5 years running. The perfect example of this was HP. They sell the most computers by volume easily, and yet they almost pulled completely out of that game, because the profit margins are so thin there is no money in it. Apple doesn't have the problem, and likely never will.
[quote]But obviously you're a genius. For this reason, I must ask you this: why would you support a company that exerts so much control over its users, especially when other equal or better competitors exist?[/QUOTE]
Because the control makes it the best phone. Apple's control means that my phone actually gets software updates (on day one no less), that no app can fuck with my phone settings, no app can steal my data, that I know what my phone is doing, that my phone isn't loaded with 1000 carrier branded apps, that if Apple launches a feature a carrier can't block it (hello Nexus Galaxy and Verizon).
Android has more types of apps available but everything is of mediocre quality on powerful hardware to cover it up, and WP7 is a nicer OS but has shit hardware. The iPhone is the only phone that has brilliant hardware and software, so there is no competition. I support companies that makes great products end to end, and no one in the phone space is bothering competing with Apple there, so I'll stick with Apple. If another platform looks better I have no problem switching, but at the moment no one platform does look better.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
