Posted on 05/18/2015 8:14:07 PM PDT by Swordmaker
NEW YORK/SAN FRANCISCO, May 18 (Reuters) - Apple Inc was handed a mixed ruling by a U.S. appeals court in the latest twist in a blockbuster intellectual property battle with Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, as a prior patent infringement verdict was upheld but a trademark finding that the iPhone's appearance could be protected was thrown out.
That means up to 40 percent of a $930 million verdict which had been won by Apple must be reconsidered.
In the highly anticipated ruling stemming from the global smartphone wars, the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. upheld patent infringement violations including one which protects the shape and color of its iPhone as well as the damages awarded for those violations.
"This is a victory for design and those who respect it," Apple said in a statement on Monday. A Samsung representative declined immediately comment.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
I did also want make an additional comment on the speed of the internet connection. From the Cnet review on the phone,”The real news here is the wireless trifecta: Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and EV-DO. You should check Sprint’s Web site to see if EV-DO coverage is available in your area. If it is, you can count on peak download speeds of up to 2Mbps, though real-world usage will most likely be in the area of 400Kbps to 700Kbps.”
http://www.cnet.com/products/audiovox-ppc-6700-sprint/2/
Dspite you calling me a “liar” on this as well... this would be consistent with my experience with the phone.
Absolutely not true! Maybe you are confused about the actual release date of the PPC-6700. It did not come out until the end of 2005. We are in the Puget Sound region. I was an early adopter but did not get mine until I believe February or March 2006. We got impressive 3G performance through out our area from Olympia to Everett and in most places along the I-5 Corridor. 3G worked fine in the Portland- Vancouver area as well. And Sprint released the PPC-6700 not Verizon and initially Sprint had the more developed 3G network.
The fact is that 3G was only built out to 1% in 2005. . . just because you had part of that 1% where YOU were does not mean that 1% figure is wrong. We are talking coverage area here and the 3G coverage mostly was in city centers around the country at that point. Verizon was spending like crazy and invested over $3 billion in the next two years expanding their 3G coverage and then went on upgrading to 3.75G which everyone thinks is 4G but isn't. AT&T was way late to the game.
You are such a nitpicker. . . but not with facts, with anecdotal claims from your experience, not truths and evidence.
There's a citation link for every single quotation, fireman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_Corporation
When did I tell you that I purchased the phone in question. Early 2006. So according to you they went from 1% in December of 2005 to coverage for 190 million people in 2006. Swordmaker now it is your turn to think critically about something... does that seem realistic? And why do you keep referring to Verizon when I told you when the phone we are wasting our time discussing was on the Sprint network. They do have reciprocal roaming agreements, but the last time I checked they were still separate companies.
Sprint service is a server based system . . . it does not use anything on your phone except the very general plus or minus 110 meter accuracy of your e911 GPS that your phone is capable of generating. Sprint then extrapolates your location as closely as it can and locates you on a map it sends you. In some urban areas, it may be as accurate as 10 meters.
Your phone cannot do GPS absent a Sprint Internet connection. What the Sprint GPS is doing is the MS Assisted GPS as was described in a linked article above. You have to pay for this service. It cannot be downloaded into your phone because it lacks the hardware to work.
Alternately, you have to buy an external bluetooth GPS transceiver which DOES have the radios, antennas, and chipset that your phone completely lacks.
There are many posts on the forums that confirm that the PPC-6700 has GPS.
And you can find many posts on the internet that show even more people love Obama and think he's the best president the US has ever had. That doesn't make it true. . . or make him the greatest President.
Nor do all those posts make that GPS capability in the PPC-6700's processor at all useful for anything except e911. . . which is what it is intended for as all the authoritative links, I have provided to you have claimed and shown, including Qualcomm, fireman15!
Every phone made since 2005 has the exact same GPS in it. . . e911 GPS. . . and it is not what you and those people on the internet forums think it is. I posted the information on exactly WHAT it is. . . but you have continuously ignored it. Your processor has the capability of calculating your position by interpolating the position of nearby cellular towers and checking with Verizon's data bases for known Verizon WIFI hotspots and Trilaterating the phones position from those data. If it had access to satellite data, it could also use those data as well, but it doesn't, so it uses what it has sent to it from Sprint/Verizon.
YOUR phone does not have the GPS radios nor does it have the specialized GPS chips or antennas that are absolutely required for satellite GPS to work. These radios and antennas have to be tuned to 1575.42 MHz (10.23 MHz × 154) and 1227.60 MHz (10.23 MHz × 120) and the antennas have to be an exact specific length to receive those signals. They just do NOT exist in your phone. The radios it has are tuned to 1900MHz and 800MHz, as are the antenna lengths. It needs one more radio receiver and two more antennas that just aren't there. Oops!
All of the calculations and turn-by-turn directions were done OFF site by Sprint's GPS servers, not your phone. . . which downloaded the data to your Windows phone.
It would work with ANY Windows cellular phone in Sprint's system that can display a map and play a voice. . . because by law all cellular phones are required to have an e911 GPS capability. Do you understand now?
OK. . . good catch. Sprint's original implementation of EVDO was revision 0 which only went to 967Mbs. . . and that was the speed when all those reviews that I read were done. They did later upgrade their EVDO to Revision A, which would hit 1.4Mbs. My apologies. C-Net and you have it right. . . but at the time of their review, even they were speaking theoretically because Sprint had yet to upgrade to revision A.
I note, however, the next sentence: "In the meantime, you can link to Bluetooth headsets or GPS receivers, or you can hop on to any nearby Wi-Fi hot spots." Or another sentence: "Even something as simple as switching screen orientation, which happens automatically when you open or close the keyboard was slow." Both of these sentences prove points I've made above and rebut yours. Again, not one mention of any motion sensors or internal GPS capability.
Many, if not a majority of your quotes have come from sources of questionable veracity. But, I am not going to claim that mine have been a great deal better. This conversation has gone completely off the rails. And I am sorry to have wasted so much of our time by keeping it going.
I have learned a great deal from you from our past exchanges. There is no one who is more knowledgeable of Apple products that I am aware of on this forum. Obviously Apple is a trendsetter in the electronic gizmo and computer sector.
One of my hobbies is restoring old cars. My wife and I are currently working on a rare 1942 Cadillac. We also are helping to set up a display at the Lemay Car Museum in Tacoma. Both my wife and I are familiar enough with vintage and antique cars that if we do not recognize a particular automobile we can at least identify fairly closely the year it was manufactured. Cars from the early 1900s look similar; cars from the teens look similar; cars from the twenties, thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, seventies and etc., etc., tend to be fairly easy to identify.
Car manufacturers spend massive amounts coming up with new designs. Strangely, the designs often seem to look fairly similar. Part of this is because of new and evolving technologies becoming available to all manufacturers around the same time. But have you ever heard of the largest car manufacturer suing their competitors claiming that they were the first to come up with say... headlights in front fenders, or tail fins or other cosmetic innovations that have little to do with new technology?
Having owned cell phones since the 1980s; it also is fairly easy to identify within a few years when a cell phone was manufactured. They do tend to look similar and I suppose that when a company comes out with a phone that looks like it is going to sell well... the rest of the manufacturers start making phones that look similar. The features implemented tend to come out about the same time also. Part of this is because the companies try to copy the market leader, but as with cars part of it is because the technologies that each cell phone designer has available tend to be similar.
To me the original iPhone doesn't look a great deal different from some other phones that were developed before it was. The feature set seems to me to be completely evolutionary as well. After it became a success there were a lot of other phones that started looking similar to it. However, after what I have seen with vintage cars this seems to be what one would expect in any competitive enterprise.
Apple was the first to market with a commercially successful cell phone with a multi-touch capacitive screen. How great an accomplishment was that really? As this type of screen became available one would expect that other manufacturers would start using them as well regardless of Apple's implementation. It is kind of a no brainer and this actually is the case. The same can be said of improved cell data technologies. It is hard to prove that phones coming out with evolutionary improvements are copies of one another.
The complicating factor is that unlike automobile manufacturers Apple has established a history of using its money and influence to manipulate the patent system. And they have a history of using teams of hired goon lawyers to intimidate other companies and stifle innovation. I do not have a problem with Apple's products. They are well engineered, quality consumer friendly products. I do have a problem with Apple's predatory abuse of our legal and patent system. I also have a problem with people like you who make excuses and justify this type of behavior.
Yes, I am telling you that. At the beginning of 2005, EVDO was about 1% coverage in a few city centers and then exploded in the Verizon network. There were very few phones that could even connect with EVDO, and they were expensive. Sprint built where Verizon didn't. . . rural areas. Their mutual roaming pacts made their networks virtually indistinguishable. Between Sprint and Verizon, it was very easy to grow that fast.
It was a technology who's time had arrived.
A lot can happen with two years of concentrated effort and spending two-billion dollars. Sprint piggy-backs on Verizon's network and vice-verse . . . they lease bandwidth from Verizon. Verizon concentrated on urban populations with large concentrations and then built rapidly out from cores. Verizon was eating Cingular/AT&T's lunch. . . adding customers right and left at Cingular/AT&T's expense. Meanwhile Sprint was on Verizon's CDMA coattails.
That's why it was so easy for Steve Jobs to convince Cingular/AT&T to change their business model for the iPhone. . . they had to do something. Cingular/AT&T had the wrong idea that everything had to happen in any area at once. It slowed them down immensely because they would not activate anything in an area until everything was ready to switch over.
I do appreciate the research you have been working so hard at for my benefit. However you are just going over the same posts that I read many years ago and which were proven to be mostly inaccurate. Actually the phone does have the chips and it does have an internal GPS antenna; at his point I am about ready to break it open so I can take some pictures for you. But as I said in my previous post. This discussion went off the rails and it just doesn't matter or prove anything other than you are an extremely condescending know-it-all that can be easily misled by any posted discussion from nearly ten years ago that you feel supports your position.
I purchased my first portable GPS, a Garmin 95 AVD for our General Aviation Airplane and was using it before you probably were even aware that such units even existed.
Why you sneaky old fool. The PPC-6700 was released at the end of 2005, not the beginning. You stated that “when my phone was released” that there was 1% coverage. This has been typical of your misrepresentations through out our entire conversation. You have been using similar tactics in every area we have discussed. Shame on you! You are a very disingenuous person!
Strange that you should mention cars in this context because patent trolls often bring up arguments about patents and things like steering wheels and brakes, etc. and how if those things had been patented, all hell would have been out because car makers wouldn't have been able to settle on a standard. But what they DON'T understand is that THEY WERE PATENTED. . . and the patent holders DID prevent the other makers from using the steering wheel and the drum brake, and the disk brake, and other forms of brake during the terms of the patents.
The other makers came up with alternatives such as steering tillers, steering foot pedals, all kinds of creative ideas that did not include a steering wheel. Even FOUR wheels on the corners for an automobile was patented. . . and people tried three wheels, diamond patterned four wheel cars, six wheeled cars, all kinds of patterns, in an attempt to get around the patent, creating and innovation bloomed. Many makers licensed the steering wheel and just went on ahead with their automobiles.
The same thing happened with automobile brakes, headlights, transmissions. . . almost everything you can think of. Most patents expired and went into public domain and those that worked were adopted as standards for the automobile industry. Those that were very creative but were kludges trying to get around the best patents, died out. . . or may have been brought back later because they WERE good ideas just not feasible for the technology of the time.
In other words, the ability to protect a patent by slapping down infringers can spur the creative juices that will, in the long run be beneficial, if it is allowed to work as intended. Very few of the patent suits were appealed like they are today. Most were finished when the jury made its ruling.
Were there abuses? You bet. My own great-great Grandfather, Alexander Graham Bell, probably stole his invention of the Telephone. . . in fact, I have no doubt he did. The evidence is almost overwhelming that he was not the true inventor, contrary to his claims and the myth he carefully constructed. Sad, but there's nothing that can correct that crime today.
The complicating factor is that unlike automobile manufacturers Apple has established a history of using its money and influence to manipulate the patent system.
Why? Because they've both won and lost patent suits?
You make this claim. . . but I doubt you can prove even any of it. Prior to the iPhone suits, Apple was more sued, than the suer. Apple did sue over the theft of its intellectual property by Microsoft. . . a company that did indeed break a contract. They had the bad luck to get a judge who had no clue about software copyrights and how software worked and treated it as if it were something it was not. He assumed that Windows 1.0 which is what the contract was limited to, included all versions of Windows thereafter, regardless of version. And ruled that Microsoft had an unlimited license to Apple's intellectual property, instead of the limited license that had been issued for Windows 1.0 only. . . as the contract explicitly specified. The only thing that judge found that infringed Apple's copyright was the trashcan icon, even though almost every other icon was exactly identical to Apple's icons. He ruled that Microsoft would have to rename the Trashcan, so they called it the Recycle Bin.
The other lawsuit was also against Microsoft. . . and Apple essentially won it. That one had to do with Microsoft, through a third agent, lifting Apple's patented and copyrighted Quicktime code to include in Microsoft's Video Player software. That ultimately resulted in the 1997 settlement that netted Apple a $150 million down payment on future royalties, which, according to forensic accountants, ultimately totaled more than $2 billion. . . plus Apple getting unlimited access to Microsoft's IP for the life of the copyrights and patents, Microsoft's agreement to continue publishing and developing MS Office of Mac for another five years, and all Apple had to do was license the in suit copyrights and patent to Microsoft for five years, agree to include Internet Explorer with all new Macs, and drop all causes of action against Microsoft. Apple won.
Another Apple initiated lawsuit was Apple v. Psystar where a Florida Company was building Mac Clones in violation of the OS X license agreement. Apple won.
Find any other Apple initiated lawsuits that would PROVE your contention. In most instances Patent Trolls sue Apple. Again, Fireman15, this is an area where I know quite a bit. . . having been running the Apple Ping list for over ten years.
Break it open. . . it has already been taken apart by organizations such as iFixIt. . . and no antenna's are in there. The FCC has to certify what radios are in the phones before they can be sold in the USA. Its licensing does not show any GPS radios. QED there are none in the phone. I have searched the internet quite thoroughly and the HTC website does NOT claim on their spec sheet any such capability for this phone. . . which they DO claim for later models. If it had such capabilities, they would claim it. Ergo, it doesn't have such capabilities. Manufacturers do not waste component costs on building a phone and then not utilize them. . . or leave them inactivated. Nor can they include them in a phone and not declare them to the FTC on certification. They would FAIL. You just do not understand that such capabilities in an electronic device would be a huge RED flag in this day of Homeland Security if it is hidden and not declared, not certified. Etc. they're not there.
I think you underestimate my knowledge base. While i did not work with aviation my self, my father worked in aviation his entire life. I also had clients in trucking and they were buying GPS units in the early to mid-90s to track their semis. So, I am not at all misled by anything I have known and studied in depth. YOU don't know what you are talking about on a phone you own. I do know what I am talking about on e911 and you haven't a clue. . . you keep making stuff up trying to counter my authoritative sources.
Actually the phone does have the chips and it does have an internal GPS antenna;
You have not ONCE posted a link that counters what I have posted. You posted a link to the Qualcomm processor page and I explained to you what you did not understand what you were reading with links SHOWING you what it meant. . . including A-GPS, and links showing that SPRINT and Verizon use MS Assisted GPS. . . and another link explaining exactly what THAT means. I posted a citation from an expert in the field. . . who explained that the PPC-6700 does not have the support chips or antennas.
All you have is somebody claimed that it does. . . and somebody made it work. But NOT ONE SINGLE LINK ANYWHERE COMES UP WITH THAT CLAIM! I've looked. I know how to do exhaustive searches. If you can find that proof. . . please post it. All I have found is wishful thinking and hopes of people who REALLY REALLY want their antique phone to behave like a modern phone with a real GPS in it.
YOU are obviously one of them and you post anecdotal stories about your recall of someone who knew someone who once said he read something about someone who had a third cousin who claimed to have done it. That is not evidence. I posted evidence that it does not have a genuine GPS capability, just the basic e911 capability that ALL cellular phones are capable of doing for emergency purposes.
That's an example of the nits you pick. . . I did not look up the exact date of your phone's release. . . it was October 2005. . . and the build out of EVDO was at 1% in early 2005 . . . Your phone was one of the first EVDO capable phones on the market. Good for it and you. . . but I was not being sneaky. The reviews I was reading were from APRIL to AUGUST of 2005. . . obvious now pre-release models sent to reviewers. . . and mentioned that EVDO was now averrable in the SF Bay area and the reviewers are all in Silicon Valley. . . that coincided with my recollection of the buildout. I stand by my comment. Nothing sneaky about it.
Yup, just checked - HTC showed the PPC-6700 at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January 2005 with a list of features. Finally Released October 2005.
For some reason we are still comparing two phones, one which was designed for serious business users and was on the cutting edge when it was released, and another that came along years later that was designed as a very expensive toy for technologically challenged yuppies.
You said, “ The fact is that 3G was only built out to 1% in 2005. . . just because you had part of that 1% where YOU were does not mean that 1% figure is wrong.” This is just one example of your multiple misleading statements. By the rime I purchased my phone the network already reached approximately 150,000,000 people. By the time the first iPhone was released to the public the Sprint/Verizon high speed data network already reached approximately 270,000,000 people.
This was part of your argument that the Internet connectivity on the original iPhone was somehow comparable to that of the PPC-6700 which is just absolutely laughable. No matter how you try and sugar coat it ATT’s “edge” technology was a joke compared to EVDO / 3G.
The mistake that I made was letting you suck me into issues of which I have first hand knowledge but which allowed you to spread voluminous amounts of manure that sound credible to those who are not actually not very familiar with the fine points of the technology being discussed.
You have done a commendable job of spreading voluminous amounts of manure here and obscuring every important point that has been made. So I congratulate you on that.
Having been one who was actually using a phone for Internet connectivity and producing written communications on the go... the first iPhone despite it's nice screen could in no way compare to the phone that I had already been using for years. The original iPhone like most Apple products of that time period was intended as an expensive toy for technologically challenged people who like to show off. It was not particularly innovative or useful. But it was a big hit with its target audience and it eventually did evolve into a useful device, and because of its success did have a great influence on the market.
Apple is the most successful marketing company the world has ever seen. They do hire hoards of hired goon lawyers to intimidate and stifle the innovation of others, despite this I think that the competition they provide helps keep the technology sector moving forward. So more power to them and to you also. It has been great fun. And I admire greatly your ability to champion a product that you feel so strongly about.
Instead of working so hard to convince the true believers that bumble bees really can’t fly... You should just go mow your lawn, change the oil in your car, or walk your dog. This has become a non-productive endeavor for both or us.
Look, when I was promoted every new fire lieutenant was required to spend time in dispatch. I spent two long years at dispatch during the time we were upgrading to e911. So I do have knowledge about this subject... possibly even more than an electronic trinket salesman who owned his own company.
I am not sure why you spent so much effort on this inconsequential GPS issue. I admitted from the start that it was implemented in a way that forced one to use a paid service from Sprint or purchase a Bluetooth GPS unit.
I participated in numerous discussions about the GPS back when the phone was relatively new. I even recognized some of those conversations you selectively edited to support your position. As you found there were people who claimed like that they did not believe the phone had actual GPS. It was hard to know who to believe except for one major detail that could not be overlooked.
When using the paid Sprint navigation service the phone provided more accurate location information than would have been possible with “tower triangulation”. The service also worked in outlying areas with poor coverage where “tower triangulation” was not possible. It is not possible to “triangulate” in areas where there is only signals from one or two towers. It also behaved like a typical GPS unit from the time period where it would lose it;s navigating abilities inside a building or under heavy tree cover even when a cell signal was still available.
So the consensus at the time was that the GPS was there along with the antenna... but you try finding pictures of the GPS antenna on the Internet in a ten year old phone. Most of the forums where this phone was discussed are long gone... I have managed to find a few remnants at archive.org but that is about it. I feel the GPS was poorly implemented and other than not being able to concede a point where I know that you are misinformed it is totally inconsequential.
Look fireman15, I "selectively edited" nothing from the posts I replicated. I posted the replies in those threads that were germane to the topic from people who seemed knowledgeable and ignored the ones who didn't. I did not post the entire thread for obvious reasons. . . Your purpose now in your last few post is pure ad hominem attack. I'm done with you and your twaddle!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.