Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wozniak On the Samsung Patent Verdict

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the no-sir-I-don't-like-it dept.

Android 328

dgharmon writes "'I hate it,' Wozniak told Bloomberg in Shanghai today, referring to the patent battle. He thinks the ruling will be overruled. Samsung will of course appeal, and this case will go back and forth for months still, but Wozniak just wishes everyone could get along. 'I don’t think the decision of California will hold. And I don’t agree with it — very small things I don’t really call that innovative. I wish everybody would just agree to exchange all the patents and everybody can build the best forms they want to use everybody’s technologies,' he said."

cancel ×

328 comments

Please. (5, Insightful)

pdbogen (596723) | about 2 years ago | (#41329917)

That would be amazing.

Re:Please. (4, Interesting)

bobthesungeek76036 (2697689) | about 2 years ago | (#41329927)

Amen!!!

Re:Please. (0, Offtopic)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#41330935)

Troll? What the heck, I agree with bobthesungeek here and it is definitely not trolling. This is slashdot, mod parent up please.

Re:Please. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330207)

Captain Crunch would probably whistle in agreement.

Boycott Apple and Google (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330459)

Boycott Apple and Google, they only care about their wallets, and this nonsense proves it. These guys are evil mega-corps!

Get a blackberry instead, or whatever other company that specializes in phones/tablets and not 10,000 different things

Re:Boycott Apple and Google (4, Funny)

cyborg_zx (893396) | about 2 years ago | (#41330693)

Fight mega corp! Buy from big corp!

Re:Please. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330973)

In a related article he refused to put HIS money where his mouth is, ie invest every cent he owns in R&D so that everyone else benefits and he does not.

The really stupid thing is (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41329939)

Apple STARTED this patent war. If they hadn't started aggressively going after the other major Smartphone makers, everyone would still be rolling along quietly.

Nope, Apple did not start it (1, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41329997)

Apple STARTED this patent war.

Samsung started it with blatant copying of Apple products,

I agree with Woz, I wish it did not happen, but we should be clear that there are no clean companies in this war. Samsung clearly did copy substantially from Apple, and that triggered Apple to sue.

In an ideal world neither would have happened.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330055)

Everyone has been copying from everyone else in this industry for decades, including Apple itself. Now that they're the king of the hill, they want to change the rules. Too bad for them, this kind of crap means that every other player will now proceed to nuke them with everything at their disposal - and rightly so. /me is eagerly waiting for a lawsuit over LTE in iPhone 5 from Samsung...

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (5, Informative)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 2 years ago | (#41330135)

"Good artists copy, great artists steal" - Steve Jobs 1994

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (5, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#41330265)

"If you wish to make apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan [youtube.com]

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (5, Funny)

Spikeles (972972) | about 2 years ago | (#41330385)

I prefer this version [youtube.com]

You do not understand that quote at all (2, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41330449)

"Good artists copy, great artists steal" - PICASSO

See, you can't even attribute the quote right.

And that's why you don't understand what it means. It doesn't mean LITERALLY steal. It means you find something you love, and understand it totally... then you re-make it into something that is like it was but is wholly yours.

It's a hard concept to explain without more understanding of art and creativity... this book will help [amazon.com] .

Re:You do not understand that quote at all (2, Informative)

GrahamCox (741991) | about 2 years ago | (#41330643)

Not only that, but Steve Jobs was quoting Picasso during the run-up to the launch of the Macintosh in around 1982, not 1994.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330869)

Yeah, he stole that quote from Picasso

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330951)

"The best lube is your own spit" - Jenna Jameson

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330681)

Yeah, because they didn't get license to use LTE.... What the fuck are you retards thinking?

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330913)

Please. You act as if this is a new thing. Nvidia and 3dfx sued each other multiple times in the late 90s/early 00s. Ditto for AMD and Intel going back further. And so on...

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330959)

Hell, if it hadn't been for Xerox PARC, there'd have been no Mac OS, etc.

-Z

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (4, Informative)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 2 years ago | (#41330057)

Show's how little you know, the year BEFORE iphone was even announced, samsung released a little device f700. If you compare the 2 side by side they look very similar so on topic of who copied who first, that would be apple copied samsung.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330159)

Show's how little you know, the year BEFORE iphone was even announced, samsung released a little device f700. If you compare the 2 side by side they look very similar so on topic of who copied who first, that would be apple copied samsung.

I hate Apple with a passion but you're just wrong. The F700 came out just slightly after the iPhone. Obviously they both had to be in development around the same time but Apple was in fact first.

The myth posted above has be debunked many times, just use a little Google-fu and you will see.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (2, Informative)

PNutts (199112) | about 2 years ago | (#41330165)

If you think the patents were for a rectangle with rounded corners then you know very little about it.

Might want to research before opening mouth ... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330409)

Please go and read the USPTO design patent D504889 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D504,889.PN.&OS=PN/D504,889&RS=PN/D504,889) and then come back to us. That particular patent is **exactly** a rectangle with rounded corners.

There may have been other patents in play, but that one is essentially what people complain about when the discuss this issue.

I, for one, despise design patents. The whole point of patents were to be novel (ie, new), non-obvious (to those versed in the art), and **useful** - that's the three-prong test for a valid invention. Design patents are only allowed on non-functional (hence non-useful) stuff and have therefore mangled the entire inventive process.

Re:Might want to research before opening mouth ... (0)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#41330583)

I, for one, despise design patents. The whole point of patents were to be novel (ie, new), non-obvious (to those versed in the art), and **useful** - that's the three-prong test for a valid invention. Design patents are only allowed on non-functional (hence non-useful) stuff and have therefore mangled the entire inventive process.

The idea behind a design patent is to protect the manufacturer and the consumer from counterfeit products. I see nothing wrong with that design patent. The evidence presented during the trial that showed products before and after the Apple iPad was introduced was pretty damning for Samsung.

Re:Might want to research before opening mouth ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330659)

This is funny, but AFAIK iPad vs Galaxy Tab design claims had least success of all. US - jury didn't find infringement, Denmark - ditto, UK - judge didn't find infringement and told Apple to apologize.

Could somebody give an update on status in German court? I know they did get a preliminary injunction, but Samsung made Tab completely different by adding bumper around edges and now sells Tab 10.1N

Re:Might want to research before opening mouth ... (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 2 years ago | (#41330859)

The idea behind a design patent is to protect the manufacturer and the consumer from counterfeit products.

Huh?? Aren't you getting patents confused with trademarks?

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (5, Informative)

mrfrostee (30198) | about 2 years ago | (#41330651)

Apple's '677 patent is exactly about a rectangle with rounded corners.

Read it yourself:
http://www.google.com/patents/USD618677 [google.com]

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (2, Informative)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#41330167)

Show's how little you know, the year BEFORE iphone was even announced, samsung released a little device f700. If you compare the 2 side by side they look very similar so on topic of who copied who first, that would be apple copied samsung.

The original iPhone was announced on Jan 2007.

The Samsung F700 was announced on Feb 2007 (a month after Steve Job's demonstration) during the 3GSM World Congress, and released on November 2007.

The Samsung F700 may have had rounded corners, but it was substantially thicker and had a sliding keyboard. The UI running on their Croix OS did not resemble the iPhone at all. When the F700 was announced it was immediately compared to the newly announced iPhone by the press.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330187)

Nope, Samsung filed a patent on the design of the F700 shortly before the iPhone was announced. It wasn't released until Nov. 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700

Shows how much you know.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330199)

Must we go though this every time?

The F700 was announced in Feburary 2007 at Mobile World Congress, after the iPhone was announced in January at MacWorld. It also relied on a slide-out keyboard, so in usage they are not very similar at all. And the appearance of the UI is very different, it doesn't have the design features which were the subject of this lawsuit.

Show's how little you know

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (4, Insightful)

maeglin (23145) | about 2 years ago | (#41330307)

Must we go though this every time?

The F700 was announced in Feburary 2007 at Mobile World Congress, after the iPhone was announced in January at MacWorld. It also relied on a slide-out keyboard, so in usage they are not very similar at all. And the appearance of the UI is very different, it doesn't have the design features which were the subject of this lawsuit.

Show's how little you know

You need to consider each patent separately. The UI with four icons has nothing to do with the patent on the physical design. Nor does the four icon layout have anything to do with the slide to unlock patent.

I have no opinion on the design patent question beyond it just seems silly to my non-designer mind. As an actual software developer I do take issue with the software patents and as a member of the human race I take issue with the concept of "owning" ideas in general.

But what really gets me is the litigation apologists who selectively treat these patents as either severable or not depending on the direction the wind is blowing in order to rationalize the desertification the intellectual commons.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330361)

But what really gets me is the litigation apologists who selectively treat these patents as either severable or not depending on the direction the wind is blowing in order to rationalize the desertification the intellectual commons.

What gets me is people who resort to a strawman argument when they can't dispute a fact.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (1)

pspahn (1175617) | about 2 years ago | (#41330419)

I don't think he was trying to argue anything, he was just saying it "gets him"... as in it is annoying, is bewildering, etc.

Stop polarizing the issue.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330215)

I don't know why this is modded up to 5 when it's verifiably false. Their demos were a month or so apart, with F700 coming a bit later, and LG Prada with similar design came out a few months before them both. If anything, it just shows that market was coming to this already.

Anyways, I find Apple fanboys' claims about "blatant copying" rather silly, considering courts have mostly denied Apple's claims about copying (up to telling Apple to apologize in UK's case) and most surviving claims are utility patents related, though even those didn't fare as well as Apple hoped.

So yeah, it seems "infringing on a software patent" == "blatantly copying" in their lingo.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (1, Interesting)

PNutts (199112) | about 2 years ago | (#41330219)

Also, if anyone bothers to Google, the f700 was not "before" the iPhone. I honestly don't know why I come to this site any more.

http://androidcommunity.com/who-was-really-first-apple-vs-samsung-story-truly-debunked-20110420/ [androidcommunity.com]

From the article:
This picture above says the F700 was shown at CeBit 2006, and then released in 2007, making Apple and the iPhone the one that copied them. This is completely false. We here love Android, not Apple, but this is a interesting story and I just felt like sharing either way. Even if Apple is in the right. According to the picture the F700 was introduced in 2006, and Apple stole the design. I’m not going to get to deep on this, but the F700 was never seen until February of 2007 and our very own slashgear had it completely covered. This is AFTER Apple announced and showed the world the iPhone January 9th 2007 at MacWorld.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330391)

Wow a totally false urban myth is modded "informative".

Dubious example (2)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 2 years ago | (#41330407)

While there are clearly other "iPhone-like" phones released before the iPhone, the Samsung F700 wasn't it. All that Wikipedia notes is that Samsung was ISSUED a design patent for the phone before Steve Jobs made his iPhone product announcement.

The Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700) cites a Businessweek article (http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/16106-apple-s-war-on-android) that points to a convergence in the evolution of cellphone designs.

"Several Asian manufacturers were noodling around with similar-looking rectangular smartphones before the iPhone came to market. Tipping its hat to a fellow Korean manufacturer, Samsung notes that in 2006, nearly a year before the iPhone appeared, LG Electronics announced the round-cornered LG Chocolate, with 'virtually all of the [design] features Apple claims' to have patented. In December 2006, before Apple released images of the iPhone, Samsung itself filed a design patent in Korea for a similar rectangular phone called the F700. Smartphone and tablet-computer design was 'naturally evolving' in the direction Apple claims it has exclusive rights to use, according to Samsung. If true, that matters because basic patent law states that if an idea is 'obvious' to an 'ordinary observer' at the time of its invention, it doesn't deserve patent protection. By attacking Samsung, Apple has inadvertently put its own patents into play."

I'm not sure but perhaps Apple's only real innovation is in being the first (?) to eliminate the hardware keyboard completely. If I'm not mistaken all the previous "iPhone-like" designs had some sort of hidden/slide-out keyboard. Who knows, maybe Apples does have a patent for crippling hardware to make it look and feel "cool".

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (5, Interesting)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41330213)

If it were just Samsung getting a little sloppy about Apple's design patents, you'd have a point. But the motivation for this war is the belief that Android itself is one big ripoff of iOS and needs to die [bbc.com] . If Apple is allowed to claim ownership of the dominant user interaction paradigm, they will end up being the sole owner of the smart phone marketplace.

You say there are alternatives? These are a few small time platforms that manage to stay outside Apple's claimed IP They will always be too nonstandard to attract significant user or developer mindshare.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (0, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41330401)

So yes, Apple starts out with this feeling that Android needs to die.

That feeling might well have subsided, but Samsung released exact copies of iOS devices, one after the other. Eventually, yes, Apple took action - because they were prodded.

Again I do not support the Apple lawsuits. But Samsung was even told by GOOGLE the products looked to much alike and they proceeded, and that was all it took to set off the match.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330463)

If they were "exact copies" why are verdicts from all over the world centered on software patents like slide to unlock and multitouch gestures, not design patents? Why's Apple suing Samsung for Galaxy SIII when it was widely claimed to be "phone designed by lawyers" as to avoid infringements?

Sorry, but "Apple only has a bone with Samsung because they make exact copies" don't really work, considering those verdicts, SIII lawsuit and preceding lawsuits with other major Android manufacturers.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (0)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | about 2 years ago | (#41330851)

The lawsuits are structured so they can be won. Don't mistake the battle for the war though.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330889)

How is this related to the discussed point? If Apple only cared about "exact copying" and it was indeed blatant, then a) juries and courts wouldn't have any troubles finding that Samsung infringes on Apple's design patents, b) Galaxy SIII lawsuit wouldn't have happened. As consequent is false, it follows that antecedent is false and all the lines about "Apple doesn't wage war on Android, but only on copycats" aren't grounded in reality.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (1)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | about 2 years ago | (#41330915)

Because if it is not completely, exactly, to the nth degree the same then it isn't a pure copy, and the lawsuit would not be won.

If you win a lawsuit against some trivially stupid shit (as almost all patent lawsuits seem to be), you have the power to enforce terms on the things that the law won't let you protect which may be more important to you.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330977)

Law allows them to protect their "more important" designs - Apple got preliminary injunction on Galaxy Tab in US exactly because they told the court they are completely sure they can prove infringement on design patents. The fact is they _can't_ actually show it. They've got nothing. Nil. Nada.

So, where does this elusive "blatant copying" they defend against exist except Apple minds, if it slips through their fingers in different courts times and again whenever it comes to actual evidence?

"Stupid juries and judges can't see this blatant copying which is so clear to everyone with i's^H^H^H^eyes! Let's ban 'em over slide-to-something-or-other, but we'll know it's actually for this blatant copying, which noone but us can see!"

Anyways, how does it explain Galaxy SIII lawsuit?

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330515)

...These are a few small time platforms that manage to stay outside Apple's claimed IP They will always be too nonstandard to attract significant user or developer mindshare.

Or they were one of the most well known companies [wikipedia.org] in this industry and they jumped onto some of Apple's Patents [theregister.co.uk] and never worried because they hold some strong patents of their own. [google.com]

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (2)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | about 2 years ago | (#41330845)

Nokia and Microsoft license agreements with Apple seem pretty fair: Apple agrees to license their patents if their competitors agree not to clone their devices or interfaces. Nokia has used the rubberbanding patent and others, and are not at issue as long as their designs are reasonably different from Apple's. The goal is clear: make your device immediately identifiable. The patent decision itself is a proxy for this much broader issue.

Now... Android. Should it be allowed to live if it was just an unispired copy of iOS? (No, I don't think it was.) The answer at this point is yes... although I can see where Apple would think they have some rights to be paid for every Android device sold, much like MS has. Hopefully that will help offset some of Apple's own licensing costs for FRAND patents.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41330947)

Yeah, that should work out, assuming Apple management is sane enough to drop Steve Jobs's anti-Android Jihad. Nobody deserves to die the way Steve Jobs did, but I'm not at all sorry that his obsessions are no longer Apple corporate policy.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (1, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41330355)

So what you're saying is that Samsung's 'phones were dressed provocatively and Samsung was asking for it.

(OK, what's you're actually saying is that you have a qusi-religious devotion to Apple, or shares that you want to be maintained as ridiculously high as possible, but I'm trying to imagine you as having more of a character.)

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41330421)

No, I am saying Samsung already knew it was copying (Google told them so) and they went ahead anyway, expecting a lawsuit but betting they could come through it. And they have; they were fined a pittance compared to the sales they had from devices that gained design advantages over other Android devices.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (2)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41330465)

So Samsung's buddy Google warned Samsung to put some different clothes on, and that makes what Apple did OK. Gotcha.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330507)

(OK, what's you're actually saying is that you have a qusi-religious devotion to Apple, or shares that you want to be maintained as ridiculously high as possible, but I'm trying to imagine you as having more of a character.)

A jury vetted by both Apple and Samsung's legal team heard arguments from both sides and reviewed evidence presented during the trial found that Samsung did in fact violate Apple's design patents. SuperKendall may have over simplified the situation, but his opinion is inline with the verdict.

On the other hand, you just made a snarky remark and did an ad-hominem attack.

Hmm. Which side should I give more credence to?

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41330581)

Hmm. Which side should I give more credence to?

Woz, of course.

But the jury does not decide questions of law, the case is at first instance, and Apple are not required to bring proceedings anyway, so your post demonstrates a pedestrian lack of both understanding and useful content.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330687)

I dunno, maybe the one that doesn't get hung up on single court? You know that Apple didn't only sue in US and most of their design claims didn't survive?

Let me share a bit that I find funniest about US iteration of Apple vs Samsung, it goes like that:

Apple: Your honor, you should ban Galaxy Tab
Judge Koh: I see no reason to do that
Apple: BUT BUT BUT we'll show how it's an exact copy of iPad! So hurry, because it damages A LOT!
Judge Koh: OK, as other court says so, let's ban it
Apple and Apple fanboys: Apple only sues copycats! See, Tab is complete copy of iPad and it even got banned - and it must mean something!
(time skip)
Jury: ... iPad design: none of Samsung tablets infringe ...
Samsung: So, your honor, it was only claim against Tab and ban was instituted because Apple said they'll show it infringes without doubt. Can we have the hearing to lift the ban faster?
Apple: BUT BUT BUT you shouldn't do this! Let's have it nice and slowly, because it doesn't damage Samsung at all!

If anybody had doubts about Apple doing this to hurt the competition (they only want fair justice to protect their beautiful products from copying!), their motion to oppose lifting Galaxy Tab ban pretty much makes it clear.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330641)

lol - the hater faggots marked you troll - slashdot sucks apple hater cock. What a fuckhole of a fagsite.

Re:Nope, Apple did not start it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330811)

Samsung started it with blatant copying of Apple products

But Apple's blatant copying of the Crunchpad and Roger Fidler's inventions is ok because they're Apple and you're a fanboy.

I agree with Woz, I wish it did not happen, but we should be clear that there are no clean companies in this war.

If it was about the free exchange of patents and ideas then this wouldn't have been an issue, you claim to agree with Woz but then you complain that Samsung is in the wrong and Apple had to sue them, you obviously don't agree with Woz.

Re:The really stupid thing is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330031)

Steve Jobs says it is important to own your key technologies.

If I may interpret the summary (don't worry, I didn't read the article), Steve Wosniak says it is important to make your key technologies.

I think it's important to have both, but you can't defend making without suing using patent ownership.

He also added... (5, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 2 years ago | (#41329951)

"...and, you know, world peace would be great. Somebody should do that."

Re:He also added... (2)

omfgnosis (963606) | about 2 years ago | (#41330119)

Re:He also added... (1)

lexman098 (1983842) | about 2 years ago | (#41330671)

Who is going to start making something decent? What about everything I read in Time?

Absolutely priceless. Thank you.

Re:He also added... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330253)

Friendly Reminder: Apple, Google, Nintendo and Valve are the for-profit corporations a Slashdotter is permitted to like.

No, Apple's off the list because they're so ridiculously evil nowadays. Their sole goal is to lock you into their own ecosystem and prevent you from doing what you want with your purchased devices, and they're actively trying to destroy anyone they compete with.

Re:He also added... (1)

pspahn (1175617) | about 2 years ago | (#41330467)

The list really should simply include beer. Free shout to friends at Denver Beer Co. [denverbeerco.com] .

Re:He also added... (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 2 years ago | (#41330559)

Friendly Reminder: Apple, Google, Nintendo and Valve are the for-profit corporations a Slashdotter is permitted to like.

No, Apple's off the list because they're so ridiculously evil nowadays. Their sole goal is to lock you into their own ecosystem and prevent you from doing what you want with your purchased devices, and they're actively trying to destroy anyone they compete with.

Sooo.... Google, Nintendo and Valve are the for-profit corporations a Slashdotter is officially not permitted to criticise? Has Samsung then replaced Apple on that list?

Re:He also added... (2, Interesting)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | about 2 years ago | (#41330883)

Whoa, wait there, camper! What exactly is it that Google is doing that is so high and mighty? Selling your soul to advertisers? At least when you use Apple products you are the customer. When you use Google services, you are the product.

Couldn't we all just get along? (5, Insightful)

jerpyro (926071) | about 2 years ago | (#41329967)

I suspect that nearly everyone except the lawyers and leadership wish we could get along. When the patent system was envisioned a long time ago, progress didn't happen nearly as quickly, consumerism wasn't so rampant (you didn't buy a new ANYTHING every two years except maybe a toothbrush), and the manufacturing cycle was MUCH longer than it is today.

I consider the lawyers of these tech companies (Apple, Samsung, Oracle, etc) to be exploiting 'bugs' in the patent system, and I suspect that most others do as well. The patent system needs a hotfix, and there's no political pressure to do so.

Re:Couldn't we all just get along? (5, Funny)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#41330129)

I suspect that nearly everyone except the lawyers and leadership wish we could get along.

Actually I suspect Woz gets a big bitchslap by the legal staff tomorrow morning.
I further bet he tells them to go to hell. He owns his stock and there is nothing they can do about it.

Re:Couldn't we all just get along? (4, Insightful)

an unsound mind (1419599) | about 2 years ago | (#41330257)

Woz has always been so geeky I would be more surprised if he didn't have an active Slashdot account.

All this lawsuits, copyrights and patents business probably annoys him, because it means it'll be harder to make the next cool toy.

Re:Couldn't we all just get along? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330689)

You realize Woz is pretty much not employed by Apple, right? He's a token, part-time employee and receives (one hell of) a token paycheck, but he works for the company less than some of the people at the Apple stores.

NOT A PATENT, NOT TECHNOLOGY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330201)

mod me up. This is a design patent. There is no patent to exchange. This has nothing to do with the patent system, and wozniak mis-spoke.

Oh, but slashdot want's to complain about patents. o well. Mod me down (or nothing since I haz none anyway)

Re:Couldn't we all just get along? (5, Insightful)

Dave Emami (237460) | about 2 years ago | (#41330241)

Basically, at least as far as high tech is concerned, the patent system has morphed from its original "encourage inventors to share and explain their inventions in exchange for a short period of official monopoly" to a legally-empowered version of "I call dibs on that." Rather than developing something and patenting the result, people are observing trends, anticipating where things will go, and patenting that. Sometimes (such as with Apple) they proceed to actually develop something, and other times (as with patent trolls) they just wait to cash in. But in either case, the patent boils down to "I was the first person to tell the Patent Office that things were moving in this direction."

Preemptive patents (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#41330319)

Agreed. We are well into the era of preemptive patents, where people claim as many possible permutations of function, form and use as they can without inventing anything. Which of course halts any sort of progress completely.

Re:Couldn't we all just get along? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330255)

The acceleration of the business cycle alone means that the duration of patents is far longer now than it needs to be. Even five years seems overgenerous, especially for design patents, but if we're doing this in baby steps, then we should halve it every five years starting now, and continue until the protection period has been halved no fewer than two times, preferably three. That gives between five and two and a half years protection for a utility or plant patent, and between three and a half and one and three quarters years protection for design patents. If you haven't gotten your product to market and gotten your money's worth within that time span today, you aren't going to.

Maybe we can just continue halving it until it's gone. The same with copyrights.

that's becuase he's a douche (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41329973)

"I wish everybody would just agree to exchange all the patents and everybody can build the best forms they want to use everybody’s technologies," he said.

Ivory tower d-bag. Yeah, because Apple had absolutely NO grounds for filing suit. Whatever man, go back to sleep. You clearly don't have to be on e of the soon-to-be-unemployed through (often illegal) outsourcing of manufacturing, research and patents etc.....

Re:that's becuase he's a douche (1)

Life2Death (801594) | about 2 years ago | (#41330123)

Some men just want to watch the world burn...

Re:that's becuase he's a douche (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330881)

Apple and their fan base are the biggest bunch of crybabies I've ever witnessed.

Woz, on the other hand, continues to gain respect. A good man.

"Decision of California"? (5, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 2 years ago | (#41330071)

I don't think the decision of California will hold.

Er, its not the "decision of California".

First, because its not "of California", as it is in a U.S. federal court that happens to be located in California.

But mostly because its not even (yet, and quite possibly ever) even a decision in that court. Its the jury verdict which is still the subject of several post-verdict motions before the court finally (not considering appeals) decides on a judgement in the case.

Re:"Decision of California"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330117)

Man, the law is crazy as SHit.

Re:"Decision of California"? (1)

thomas8166 (1244688) | about 2 years ago | (#41330179)

Perhaps by "California" he was referring to Apple.

Re:"Decision of California"? (5, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#41330335)

All of the jurors though were all from California near the courthouse - which happens to be just down the road from Apple HQ.

Re:"Decision of California"? (2)

Bryansix (761547) | about 2 years ago | (#41330629)

U.S. Federal Court judges are from California. In addition they are one of the most overturned courts around. They love to legislate from the bench.

Re:"Decision of California"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330727)

Seems like you want to rename a lot of things. Why start with the decision of California instead of let's say, the battle of Gettysburg?

Why doesn't someone say what everyone is thinking (5, Insightful)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 2 years ago | (#41330103)

"For anything non-trivial, it is simply illegal to develop software." Companies are getting away with patenting things that are trivial and obvious, for almost any piece of software, you're tripping over dozens of patents. If we were to enforce the letter of the law, developing software is illegal.

A Voice Of Reason (5, Insightful)

ChodaBoyUSA (2532764) | about 2 years ago | (#41330121)

It is truly sad that a voice of reason like Woz is so rare in "business" anymore.

RODENY KING IS DEAD !! LONG LIVE THE KING !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330137)

The Woz hath spoketh !!
The Slashdotteries doth listeneth !!

Who you know (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330281)

I knew Woz about 25-30 years ago when I worked as a systems engineering consultant in the Silicon Valley. He always impressed me as an engineer who was more focused on creating wild and new stuff, vs. Jobs who wanted to rule the world... :-) Well, Jobs ruled the world for awhile, but the Woz is still kicking ass and taking names!

Two Extremes, One Partnership (5, Interesting)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41330287)

One Steve made a name for himself by opening up computers. His idea that a desktop computer should be a big open platform that anybody can plug into dominates computer design to this very day, and had a lot to do with the explosive growth of computing.

The other Steve wanted to close up smartphones [bbc.com] . Come to think of it, he took a control-freak attitude toward every product he ever launched. Ironic, really.

Re:Two Extremes, One Partnership (0)

Abstergo (2677619) | about 2 years ago | (#41330949)

It's Too Soon [1] to talk about the Steves. You might tarnish their memory or some such [2].

Sources:
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Has_Aides [wikipedia.org] (the official timeframe within which an event may be referred to with any degree of humor is 22.3 years)
[2]: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/23/christie-chides-gun-debate-in-aurora-aftermath/ [cnn.com] (in which it is determined that any position that challenges your own may not be brought in cases where you are forced to make a strong case to defend yours)

The last good thing from Apple ... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330337)

... was the Apple ][e. Everything after that was utter crap.

Re:The last good thing from Apple ... (3, Informative)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#41330491)

Get it right.

It's Apple //e.

The ][ was for the Apple ][ and ][+.

Re:The last good thing from Apple ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330755)

Oh look another pedant.

Re:The last good thing from Apple ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330943)

Got it, the Apple 2-e and the Apple 2-Plus. Because watching that vein in your forehead pop out is so incredibly amusing!

Big players exchanging patents isn't ideal either (4, Insightful)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | about 2 years ago | (#41330375)

Having the big companies exchanging patents just means the big players divide up the monopoly between them whilst suing the start ups out of existence.

woz is a great guy (5, Insightful)

LodCrappo (705968) | about 2 years ago | (#41330549)

Woz always seems to be sensible, realistic and honest. Make you wonder how S. Wozniak got mixed up with the likes of S. Jobs in the first place.

Re:woz is a great guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330769)

and then got out, because he's sensible, realistic and honest.

Re:woz is a great guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330989)

yeah, came to say the same thing: They were young and interested in the same things. One of the guys I hung out with in high school and early college was an astounding charlatan -- he was fun to be around in the same way that a limitless supply of gunpowder can be fun if you ignore the risk of being adjacent to that big of a **boom** if things go wrong. Honest to god, I looked out of the window of a Pizza Hut one day to see him get arrested; when he resurfaced 2 weeks later, he had 'taken a road trip'.

He Said What?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330575)

"I wish everybody would just agree to exchange all the patents" This is a clear indication that Woz is a godless communist and should never be allowed anywhere near Cupertino ever again. :)

The Woz (5, Interesting)

BluPhenix316 (2656403) | about 2 years ago | (#41330647)

I love Steve Woz. He is a really cool guy and is really the original brains behind Apple. Apple may have skyrocketed into fame because of Steve Jobs' marketing but its Woz that made Apple who they are today. The man is a old fashioned hacker, which is something that is missing from today's computer hardware and software companies. The computer enthusiasts have been replaced by the greedy business men in the computer world and its really sad.

invent your own phone fags (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41330673)

Your precious fucking android before Apple came along

http://bit.ly/OtBWTp

Suck my dick haters. Suck it now bitches.

Wish the Woz was the CEO (5, Interesting)

ebinrock (1877258) | about 2 years ago | (#41330863)

Woz is so cool. If only he were Apple's CEO, we wouldn't be having all these lawsuits, and we'd probably have some REAL innovation from Apple (not catching up to making a 4" screen and including LTE). C'mon, smartphone makers, where's that long-lasting battery power (perhaps with a solar panel on the back to boot)? Where's that built-in holographic projector (a la R2-D2)? Think how useful that would be in the corporate world! (Not to mention gaming!)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...