Notices


Reply
Thread Tools
Guest | Posts: n/a | Thanked: 0 times | Joined on
#11
Originally Posted by gerbick View Post
Samsung isn't on the ropes. The $1.05 Billion fine doesn't even equate to the $3.8 Billion Apple paid Samsung for components last year. It doesn't equate to 1/4th of what Samsung made in the last quarter of 2011.

Simply stated, this judgement is more about limiting innovation around prior art and other arguable things.

So be it. Samsung got caught copying some things. Let's see how badly this spills over to other lawsuits. This is a license to sue, if you ask me.

But on the ropes? Look above. Not hardly.

You know what I meant, on the ropes in the courtroom, and Yes, they were knocked out. With regards to the big picture, yes, financially is not much to them. But why do you want to buy copycats?
 
Posts: 322 | Thanked: 218 times | Joined on Feb 2012
#12
Industrial protectionism is nothing new. What's new is the watering down of patent laws have been approved in a court. There are several courts around the world, and Apple being a US company have opened up a can of worms that will hit them smack in the face at the next occasion.

Of course Samsung have copied some of the look and feel of Apple. The point is that look and feel is not patentable, it never has been. Besides, a grid of icons, please.

Last edited by specc; 2012-08-26 at 06:37.
 
gerbick's Avatar
Posts: 6,585 | Thanked: 14,569 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ undecided.
#13
Originally Posted by Lumiaman View Post
But why do you want to buy copycats?
Microsoft copied Xerox. Apple copied Xerox. Microsoft copied IBM and Apple.

Dunno man. There's a lot of copycats over the years.
__________________
gerbick | iPhone X [ 256GB iOS 11.4 Beta ] | iPad Pro [ 256GB iOS 11.4 Beta ]
Former Maemo Council Member - 2015
 
Dave999's Avatar
Posts: 6,711 | Thanked: 8,057 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Moon! It's not the East or the West side... it's the Dark Side
#14
This is more about protecting us company than right or wrong. Even if they don't have the same patent in other countries we wouldn't see this outcome in other countries. This is more about US vs Asia than technical aspects and who have done what.
__________________
Do something for the climate today! Anything!

I don't trust poeple without a Nokia n900...I'm also supporting Apple 2016 or until Jolla fully refund or ship the jPad to all backers and supports!

"waited over a year for no tablet and then the same again for potential refund? inspires confidence!"
 
Posts: 202 | Thanked: 533 times | Joined on Jul 2011
#15
A UK court recently ruled Apple must take out advertisements stating Samsung did NOT copy their products. I guess that's the difference between home territory and neutral ground.

To me the iPhone just looks like the LG Prada which won a design and innovation award in 2006.

What's the betting the next iPhone will have a bigger screen with a smaller surround thus making it look more like a Galaxy?

The iPhone is a nice feature phone and Apple have made a lot of money from it. I'm sure when they announce their next iteration (i.e. a new number and some other tiny modification) their devotees will queue up all night in order to pay EUR 600 for it and I don't doubt they'll hail it as the most 'innovative' device in the entire history of the cosmos but I'd wager my used tissue collection it wont contain anything new or interesting to a real smartphone enthusiast.
 
Posts: 322 | Thanked: 218 times | Joined on Feb 2012
#16
Originally Posted by switch-hitter View Post
A UK court recently ruled Apple must take out advertisements stating Samsung did NOT copy their products. I guess that's the difference between home territory and neutral ground.

To me the iPhone just looks like the LG Prada which won a design and innovation award in 2006.

What's the betting the next iPhone will have a bigger screen with a smaller surround thus making it look more like a Galaxy?

The iPhone is a nice feature phone and Apple have made a lot of money from it. I'm sure when they announce their next iteration (i.e. a new number and some other tiny modification) their devotees will queue up all night in order to pay EUR 600 for it and I don't doubt they'll hail it as the most 'innovative' device in the entire history of the cosmos but I'd wager my used tissue collection it wont contain anything new or interesting to a real smartphone enthusiast.
http://macdailynews.com/2007/01/16/l..._similarities/
 
Posts: 1,341 | Thanked: 707 times | Joined on Feb 2010
#17
Is there any multitouch device which would not have pinch to zoom now?
http://www.dailytech.com/Jury+Finds+...icle25515c.htm
Samsung has been found guilt of violating the '301 ("bounce patent"; all devices), U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915 ("pinch to zoom"; almost all devices), U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 (all devices), and '163 ("double tap to zoom"; some devices, but not others) technology patents for most of its smartphone and tablet devices.
Seems like whole dictionary of Apple's gesture patents have now been confirmed by a court ruling.
http://gizmodo.com/285176/apples-ges...or-multi+touch
 
Posts: 202 | Thanked: 533 times | Joined on Jul 2011
#18
Originally Posted by zimon View Post
Is there any multitouch device which would not have pinch to zoom now?
http://www.dailytech.com/Jury+Finds+...icle25515c.htm
From the same article:

"Pinch to zoom was first dreamt up decades ago by Myron Krueger and the University of Toronto developed and published papers on virtually equivalent technology almost 25 years prior to Apple producing its first multi-touch device (the iPhone), but Apple claims to have "invented" pinch-to-zoom as it appeared to be the first to do it in the context of a capacitive multi-touch screen."

Laughable. Perhaps Apple should also patent it 'in the context of' a black rectangle just to be extra sure.

I'm surprised Samsung's lawyers didn't go for the 'prior art' defence rather than the 'we did not copy Apple' defence, it seems there's plenty of prior art for all of Apple's 'inventions'.


There was an episode of 'The Goon Show' where one of the characters patented the word 'help' and then went around pushing everyone in the river. Real life has got nearly as silly.
 
Posts: 1,341 | Thanked: 707 times | Joined on Feb 2010
#19
It is not like Samsung's legal team would not have presented prior art, but jurors just didn't feel like taking it seriously.

http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/0...ogging-us-down
'After we debated that first patent what was prior art because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple. In fact we skipped that one so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down.'
It is not the first time I think US legal system seems to be just a big bad and sad joke.
 
Posts: 457 | Thanked: 598 times | Joined on Jan 2010
#20
An impartial jury consisting of the world's most renowned patent experts has spoken!

I wonder why judges in other countries didn't came to the same conclusion..

Bad for US consumers, good for MS and its poodle Nokia.
 
Reply

Tags
big brother, desperate fud, protectionism, samsung

Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:54.