The court documents clearly showed they were willing to license to Samsung. What they've said is that their patents are not FRAND, which means they're not obliged to license them on FRAND terms, and that injunctions can be sought for infringement.
Battle of the ludicrous patent claims: Apple vs Samsung vs Apple
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
- Status
mugurumakensei
Member
Like I said, Apple will not license the patents to Android OEMs. That's over a 30% increase to the costs of quite a few android devices. Overly exorbant license fees are essentially the same as not offering a license at all.
Technosteve
Banned
Source?
And this is stealing
OMG why did you just post a picture of the same phone twice? They're so clearly the same I thought I was seeing double. Quick, how many fingers are you holding up?
FFS.
HoodWinked
Member
And this is stealing
looks like apple 4g stole samsung's phone design.
mugurumakensei
Member
They wanted essentially $40 per device from every Samsung device when they offered their extortion arrangement.
You honestly don't have a problem with copying another companies work that blatantly?
I don't think OEMs are seeking to license the trade dress. They can make phones like the S3 that don't ape iPhone designs. The other patents are less than $8, far less than Google asking for 2.25% of sale price for h.264 patents.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieg...ined-about-samsung-copying-in-2010-live-blog/
This is the Apple royalty expert at trial:
Can you tell me why it's deserving of legal protection? Without it sounding like hurt feelings?
ROFL.. ok dude. Keep drinking the coolaid.
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
Are you arguing that designers shouldn't have their designs protected?
edit: I'm not arguing for this case btw. Just the wording in your post makes it sounds like design does not deserve legal protection, just to be clear.
mugurumakensei
Member
And this is stealing
Aside from the longer speaker, the different button, the different aspect ratio, different size, and the samsung logo, they're practically the same.
The products are similar in shape? Why is this a problem?
Do store brand products have frivolous lawsuits over generic cheerios? Do any other area of electronics do this? Think of how glorious the electronic industry would be if we all were still using Trinitrons, AT&T phones, and Internet Explorer.
Can you imagine a computing world defined by software (which it has to because moore's law is reaching it's elder years) where 1 company owns everything and there's no innovation or competition? I can, it's today's technology. There's no reason to improve.
googleplex
Member
And this is stealing
Horse Shit! Anyone with two functioning eyes can see the difference between those two phones.
Because what is the point of spending years making something new if someone else can just steal it in 3 months and devalue what you created?
My wife works as a chemist in drug creation and there would be no money to do research if her company was not able to patent what they create. If another company could get away with copying it after they pay her for years of research, they would stop paying for that research and just wait for someone else to do it so that they could copy it. Patents ensure that it is worth your while to create something new.
Technosteve
Banned
I think you guys are talking in circles, Apple won unanimously in the patents not in trade dress.
Apparently 9 people with 18 functioning eyes disagree with you.
mugurumakensei
Member
Most of them over 50 so yea I would question their vision.
googleplex
Member
Hence my earlier "fucking idiots" comment.
CharminUltra
Member
Hadn't seen this one LOL!And this is stealing
Oh Sadsung. So blatant, so shameless. Never change.
EightBitNate
Member
Exactly, I talked about this in previous threads. I questioned whether there would be a point in arguing after the jury ruling. But I guess there's one reason or another that Apple's in the wrong and is the devil and everyone else is god.
Apple has a iOS/iDevice platform of software and brands. They've made hundreds of billions. They don't deserve own shapes and gestures. They don't need that because they've created an ecosystem. Those UI/designs aren't inventions, it's user interface for code. The patent system and your idea of what qualifies as defending as a patent is the problem. It is a massive roadblock to competition and innovation.
I'm not anti-Apple. I'm anti frivolous UI patents.
googleplex
Member
Same reason I still call O.J a murder. The Jury was wrong and this ruling fucks over the consumer.
Technosteve
Banned
If Microsoft and Nokia can make a phone that is not even remotely close to looking like an iphone/iOS, Samsung should have been able to as well. But they chose not to create something new. They chose to take the easy way out and copy something that was successful. And now they have to pay for that choice. The justice system worked this time.
EightBitNate
Member
How exactly does ths fuck over the consumer. If things like Windows Phone come out of cases like this, I'd expect all Android users to be happy. There is no single "right" way.
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
Honestly even stock android has massively differentiated itself from iOS. Holo is really good.
Because patenting dumb things like shapes, and natural extensions of the mechanics of the human hand with touch is senseless (Apple makes enough money) and it slows down software innovation. A lot of increases in productivity for society will be in software over the next 100+ years, and if we have companies sitting on trivial concepts and asking for billions, then economic progress is going to slow down considerably.
Competitors should be able to use all ideas to innovate rapidly, reuse code/ideas, and focus on competing with the fundamentals of products, software design, product platform, reliability, cost, marketing. Not "I own the concept of touch".
Keep in mind I'm talking about all companies. If Microsoft has a patent on tap a few places on a screen to unlock, then fuck them as much as slide to unlock.
Wiktor
Member
Many of Apple's claims were ridiculous (like just tablet shape patent), but Samsung dug themselves into the hole, but blantantly copying the look and feel of Apple's devices, including even packaging and exact visual design elements. They seem to be moving away from that now (Galaxy S3 looks really different from iPhone), but the damage is already done. If it was just about Samsung making devives with thin bezels and big screens it wouldn't end up like this.
That said 1 billion is pretty puny sum for a giant like Samsung and as previous cases have shown, without jury to sway, Apple doesn't seem to be able to really win such cases in other countries
That said 1 billion is pretty puny sum for a giant like Samsung and as previous cases have shown, without jury to sway, Apple doesn't seem to be able to really win such cases in other countries
HoodWinked
Member
its not puny. thats like an entire quarter of profits.
Wiktor
Member
more like few weeks of profit. The projected profits for second quarter this year are close to 6 billion.
Guys, if you haven't read through the ruling yet, Samsung was nailed more so for the software patents, and not for trade dress. The trade dress patents were nowhere near as unanimous. Neither were the brand dilution claims.
It is close to $50/phone (And could go up to $150/phone if the Judge triples the damages) which is probably most of their profit on those phones. Remember that this case only includes the US and only includes phones that were released through 2009ish. 1 Billion could just be the tip of the iceberg.
HoodWinked
Member
could you imagine if apple lawyers were to start patenting shit in games like menus and voice chat.
Wouldnt suprise me. thats what Apple does, patent existing ideas.
Could you possibly be any more disingenuous?
If Microsoft and Nokia can make a phone that is not even remotely close to looking like an iphone/iOS, Samsung should have been able to as well. But they chose not to create something new. They chose to take the easy way out and copy something that was successful. And now they have to pay for that choice. The justice system worked this time.
As much as I like my past 3 android phones, I gotta agree. Samsung should burn.
Its the truth, most of the software patents Apple have acquired are for things that already existed.
Read somewhere on the gaming side MS has a patent on console voice chat. At least the way they use it.
So should every other manufacturer if thats the case. :/
Microsoft patented voice chat in (console) games long ago if I understand this correctly: http://www.google.com/patents/US20050245317
Medical patents take years to make back the investment on. People continue to buy the the same medicines for decades.
The iphone made back its R&D investment in under a year. No one is still buying an iPhone 3G or a Galaxy S.
Try again. When we're talking about government granted monopolies, a really solid case for why it's in the best interest of consumers to create that monopoly should be made. No one has ever made one for software patents or using trade dress against a non-counterfeit product.
Wiktor
Member
It's not like that court will be able to award damages for phones sold outside US (and in other countries Apple hasn't been all that successful in similiar cases). Plus you can see Samsung has been expecting this for quite some time. In recent years the move have been to have much more distinct phones, designed in many ways specifically to avoid Apple's patents;
I agree with all of this. But just this ruling could scale up to 150$/phone - 3 Billion total. Hardly chump change, even for Samsung.
Wiktor
Member
It's a lot, but it won't really damage Samsung's financials in any significant way. THat;s what I meant
Plus...it was propably still worth it. Using those tactics Samsung managed to absolutely dominate phone market. No matter how much they would be punished for their methods, it's still worth it.
- Status