« Apple to Bring Messages Alerts to the iPad with Vibrator Mode | Main | Apple Improves Auto Exposure Camera Feature for FaceTime »

March 21, 2013


I guess if they blatantly copied Apple invention, they could and should get sued. That's what patents do. Protect a company from having their ideas ripped off. Young Androiders don't get that. Stay in school until you do.

The article is about another patent Apple applied for.
Osman suggested Samsung, HTC and Google as examples of who would be likely to get sued.

For the Record, Samsung files more patents than Apple by a long shot and they're constantly suing their competitors. Worse yet, they own what are known as "FRAND patents" or "essential patents" that are required for products like smartphones and they're constantly abusing their patents to threaten other smartphone companies with. That's a fact. So your fear of Apple is biased. Samsung is quite the aggressor with their patents.

As long as they don't blatantly copy Apple's patent, there's nothing to worry about.

Man, Apple is getting out of hand with filing patents to eliminate competition and sue any company that dares come close to using what their patents offer/

If let's say HTC, Google or Samsung develops a phone that's designed to resist falls and breaks, Apple will surely sue them.

Please, other than Apple fighting for the iPhone, what case did Apple sue a company about a technology that they didn't use themselves. I mean that's your point isn't it? Isn't this the Android world's myth. If you know of a case let me know. Otherwise, this kind of viewpoint is just silly and unfounded garbage.

The battery part isn't an odd-ball at all, it fits perfectly with Apple's propensity to patent everything, including the kitchen sink. They may never use removable batteries, but patenting the use of them in this process will prevent other companies, who do employ removable batteries, from using them in their own fall orientation mechanisms, at least not without paying Apple a hefty royalty.

Perhaps some parts are as you say, but it's not that important to others for Apple to waste engineering time on. That's "lawyer" think for sure.

With a patent, if you think of something that could be used (by anyone, not just you) and that hasn't been patented yet and is eligible for protection, you probably want to patent it.

You don't need a patent to DO something, you need a patent to stop others from doing it. Patents are NOT "here's what we plan to do." They are "we came up with something and want to be able to make others pay (or just not allow them) to do it." The most they show is that a company happened to be doing some kind of research in an area. Apple is certainly doing research on device durability. Including a battery-eject invention just shows that their engineers didn't decide to forget about every option that doesn't exist in Apple products.

The comments to this entry are closed.