The Galaxy S2 is still for sale and was found guilty of violating Apple patents today. And who the hell is talking about monopolies? Do you see Apple suing Rimm? Nokia? Microsoft? No. And they are all competitors to Apple in this space who created very different products. Apple isn't even suing Google, Google is the one suing Apple. So I suppose that means Google is trying for a government supported monopoly too? You try again.
Battle of the ludicrous patent claims: Apple vs Samsung vs Apple
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
- Status
The Galaxy S2 is still for sale and was found guilty of violating Apple patents today. And who the hell is talking about monopolies? Do you see Apple suing Rimm? Nokia? Microsoft? No. And they are all competitors to Apple in this space who created very different products. Apple isn't even suing Google, Google is the one suing Apple. So I suppose that means Google is trying for a government supported monopoly too? You try again.
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
There's double tap to zoom.
Pinch to zoom is still ridiculous though.
Maybe they can try double finger circle rotate to zoom?
We're talking about patents. A patent is a government granted monopoly. So yes, we're all talking about monopolies.
And hah. You think Google isn't next? Well, strictly speaking, Google's already initiated their pre-emptive strike. Which is also a dick move. This shit needs to end.
In time.
Software patents are so overeaching. If a successful local restaurant chain has a unique theme, service, recipe, and someone else takes that idea and modifies it and makes a different restaurant chain that becomes much more successful, does the derivative owe money to the original restaurant? I don't think so, but in the software patent world the original company owns it somehow. And not even the guy that comes up with the idea, but the business owners.
mescalineeyes
Banned
The only way to side with Samsung on this one if you are being disingenuous or an asshole.
This isnt about some rounded rectangles. They stole. Willfully. This was now proven by actual documents in the court of law.
It takes a huge cognitive dissonance to ignore a certain. 100+ pages document that outlines exactly how to recreate the iPhone experience.
(And then fail at it so damn hard, which is probably the funniest part about it)
This isnt about some rounded rectangles. They stole. Willfully. This was now proven by actual documents in the court of law.
It takes a huge cognitive dissonance to ignore a certain. 100+ pages document that outlines exactly how to recreate the iPhone experience.
(And then fail at it so damn hard, which is probably the funniest part about it)
googleplex
Member
No, Fucking NO! We're talking about patent that Apple has that they shouldn't because there based on prior art!
The only way to defend this Apple Bullshit is to be in your words, "disingenuous or an asshole ."
How did thy fail? Samsung has leap frogged to be biggest handset manufacturer in the world. Oh and I'm an asshole.
Which of the patents Apple won on today do you consider to be prior art?
Or maybe you side with them if these patents affect your livelihood and the future creativity of the industry you've spent your life working in. These patents and this lawsuit are toxic and will only lead to more toxicity.
This does not encourage anything but everyone lawyering up and phones being designed by lawyers. They should, and for the most part do, scare the shit out of everyone who does creative work in tech.
I personally feel that it's silly to side with Apple in this trial unless you're a shareholder, but I'm not going to call people assholes for doing so.
Pretty much.
googleplex
Member
For one: Pinch to Zoom. That existed before the IPhone but guess what? Apple has a patent on it, and Samsung was found guilty of violating that patent.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
You mean by buying Motorola patents?
mescalineeyes
Banned
I'd argue that this should only scare the shit out of everyone who does derivative and copycat "work" in tech.
I don't think anyone is suing for the Galaxy Nexus, and for good reason. It's nothing like an iPhone.
Ad Pinch-to-Zoom: I invite you to watch all those Mitsubishi Diamond Touch videos and not come away with the same verdict as the jury.
It's not really the same thing.
Making a generic version of a drug would be like copying the source code of another software company.
The current state of software patents would be like being able to Patent non-drowsy antihistamine.
When the first HIV protease inhibitor came out were they given a patent on the concept of protease inhibitors? No, they were given a patent on their compound. Now imagine if they were given a patent on the concept, would that help innovation in the antiviral medical field? Just fight virus's another way!
Huh? Google owns Motorola Mobility now and they initiated suit against Apple earlier this week.
http://www.zdnet.com/motorola-mobility-sues-apple-again-seeks-iphone-mac-import-ban-7000002853/
Wiktor
Member
Oh, I think they would sue Microsoft if they could. But the problem is pretty much every Apple devices infriges on tons of Microsoft's patents. It would be mutual destruction, so both companies don't bother.
Also..Apple has sued Nokia not long ago, they've just lost. Nokia however did successfuly sue Apple and now Apple has to pay them fee from every device sold.
It is impossible to not do derivative work in tech. The field moves too fast, the innovations come too quickly and are mostly obvious next-steps. Almost every line of code ever written risks infringing on a patent. The body is too large and too vague to know for sure. And reading patents (which were intended to enrich industry by being widely read and understood) is now literally dangerous, because you might accidentally infringe on something obvious and having read it means you 'knew' you were.
We have a system that assumes it takes 20 years to make good on an investment being applied to an industry with product lifecycles less than 5 years long, where the vast majority of their profit is in the first year.
If you can't see how that's fundamentally broken all of the above is, I don't know what to tell you.
Apple and Microsoft have an IP sharing agreement from the fallout of the 80s infringement trial against MS (which apple lost, for the most part) and Apple's near death in the late 90s.
If Apple could sue MS, and WinPhone was anywhere near Android's market share, you could bet your ass they'd sue. Plenty of the patents at issue in this and other cases are 'infringed' on by MS.
No, Ethyl 4-(8-chloro-5,6-dihydro-11H-benzo[5,6]cyclohepta[1,2-b]pyridin-11-ylidene)-1-piperidinecarboxylate (and/or the process to synthesize it) was patented.
What?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57496833-37/apple-samsungs-galaxy-nexus-a-copycat-of-iphone/
Cmon, apple is in for the monopoly, they will sue every successful competitor, doesn't matter how ridiculous its claim are.
mescalineeyes
Banned
but see, that's not Apple's job. It's a bit of a "hate the game" sort-of situation.
Someone should have gone and said, "okay, bounceback and pinch to zoom are FRAND-patents" and then you can go and put it in your phone.
I say with Pinch to Zoom no one would argue against it.
but fucking Bounceback? that's bullshit. Samsung deserves all the shit they can get for stealing that.
These lawsuits are decided in a court of law. If they are truly that ridiculous, you have nothing to fear.
No, but Nokia and Motorola are suing apple for infringing patents fundamental to making a mobile phone. Yet apple are happy to ignore those and release anyway, then retrospectively ask for FRAND terms once they are successful. And at the same time suing for stupid amounts of money for aesthetic patents like fucking swipe to unlock. Nothing fundamental to getting you actually connected to the mobile network or the Internet etc.
Just seems hugely disproportionate.
And please tell me it isn't a jury of normal people - its patent and tech experts, right?
Microsoft actually pays Apple a license fee to use some of the patents the Samsung violated, which is the reason they don't get sued. Samsung could have had the same thing, but they probably still would have violated the anti-cloning clause.
Just like Apple didn't have a patent on touch screen phones, but rather specific implementations like bounce back scrolling. You are proving Apple's point. There is more than 1 way to accomplish the same end goal - make a smart phone. Samsung didnt need to copy Apple's patents to do it.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
Yeah, i meant Motorola Mobility. I thought you meant by buying them they have prepared for war. I did not know about the lawsuit so thank you.
I don't know what you're trying to say here, but if I haven't been clear that I hate this game regardless of who plays it, I don't know what to do. Software patents are bullshit and never should have been allowed into the patent game in the first place. Using trade dress to patent look and feel also should never win the day. It's for punishing counterfeiters, not competition.
Why?
Again I ask, what is the net benefit to society or the industry in having piecemeal ideas like this protected by law? This is a monopoly we're talking about here, a company is entitled to exclude its competition from making something and I want to know why that's a good idea.
Bounceback scrolling is an idea. It is not anywhere near as concrete as a chemical reaction. Pretending that they're somehow equivalent in either scope or purpose is disingenuous at best.
From your own link:
"However, by the time Schering submitted the drug to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval, the agency had already approved a competitor's non-sedating antihistamine, terfenadine"
Well, on to the inevitable appeal. Apple winning this round is uninteresting - was so clearly going to go in their favour given the way things were set up. Round one is a partial loss for consumers and a partial win for shitty patents, but until we get a final decision here it's largely irrelevant. Hopefully this sort of thing will only damage the US market - decisions elsewhere seem a whole lot more sane so far.
Edit: Just read the Groklaw article on the decision. If what they're saying The Verge has reported about the jury deciding they didn't need the instructions and returning an inconsistent verdict (awarding Apple damages for non-infringing devices) is halfway true, then it's a real facepalm moment. Yet more ammunition for the appeal.
Edit: Just read the Groklaw article on the decision. If what they're saying The Verge has reported about the jury deciding they didn't need the instructions and returning an inconsistent verdict (awarding Apple damages for non-infringing devices) is halfway true, then it's a real facepalm moment. Yet more ammunition for the appeal.
meh, i need to see a better breakdown because i could have sworn i saw the same exact phone on two different carriers, one with an infringe, the other not
Delusibeta
Banned
So, in short, Apple can now sue Google and anyone who uses Android. Great, thanks US government.
Apple CEO Tim Cook: verdict is 'a loud and clear message that stealing isnt right'
Not completely serious. But I love that quote from Jobs
Delusibeta
Banned
RoadHazard
Gold Member
That would make sense if the decisions weren't made by a jury full of people who evidently don't really understand these matters or know what they're doing. Any sane person can see that the pinch-to-zoom patent should be invalidated, yet it wasn't.
What did you find objectionable to Karan Singh and Ravin Balakrishnan's arguments in court that DiamondTouch, Jeff Han etc. did not constitute prior Art?
Dynamite Shikoku
Congratulations, you really deserve it!
Yeah it was pretty unlucky that all the jurors were insane
Complex matters like fraud and copyright/patent infringement shouldnt use the jury system
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Exactly. It seems insane to me to let matters like these be decided by people who really can't be expected to fully understand them in such a short time.
Doubly so if those people decide not to bother with jury instructions or double-checking their verdict so that they can get home for the weekend.
Since the software patents were found valid by a jury, could those patents be argued again in a different case?
Did the trade dress do anything to narrow the focus beyond "rectangle with round edge"? Were all the phones included in the patent infringement part of the trade dress as well? While the Galaxy S I and II are the closest to Apple of all the mainstream Android phone, the other phones contains a lot more hardware design differences from iPhone. The Continuum, for example, is nearly an oval looks more like a dumbphone, and the Epic 4G contains a keyboard that should ensure no consumer confusion. If so, then I doubt the phone curve on the Galaxy Nexus or the nearly round top and bottom of the Galaxy S3 are enough to avoid another trade dress lawsuit.
Did the trade dress do anything to narrow the focus beyond "rectangle with round edge"? Were all the phones included in the patent infringement part of the trade dress as well? While the Galaxy S I and II are the closest to Apple of all the mainstream Android phone, the other phones contains a lot more hardware design differences from iPhone. The Continuum, for example, is nearly an oval looks more like a dumbphone, and the Epic 4G contains a keyboard that should ensure no consumer confusion. If so, then I doubt the phone curve on the Galaxy Nexus or the nearly round top and bottom of the Galaxy S3 are enough to avoid another trade dress lawsuit.
I think the jury really bought into Apple's story of the iPhone design that took 3 months to be copied after years of R&D at Apple. The comparison documents, "heaven and Earth", and "crisis of design" didn't help Samsung at all. Not surprised the jury was compelled by this stuff, it was a pretty good case from Apple's lawyers.
don't forget the ipad.
Here is a better photo
Also helps that Apple has protypes that predate it a lot. Not to mention Apple got their iPad design protected back in 2005.
- Status