Support NeoGAF

[rkn]

No, Apple and Steve just pretended it was an amazing new thing.

Lol worthy. Please go back to 2006, your amazing new things are there waiting.

 

[Puddles]

I love the "Now Apple is going to sue everyone. Consumers will suffer." bullshit.

Apple only sued one company. Look at the phones, guess which one, and guess why.

(Hint: Because none of the other ones are easily mistaken for an iPhone. But hey, Apple is "evil", so...)

That doesn't even look particularly similar to an iPhone.

 

[Kinitari]

I love the "Now Apple is going to sue everyone. Consumers will suffer." bullshit.

Apple only sued one company. Look at the phones, guess which one, and guess why.

(Hint: Because none of the other ones are easily mistaken for an iPhone. But hey, Apple is "evil", so...)

((Oh, and some of those are "rounded rectangles." Go figure. Guess as long as you don't combine ALL of the iPhone design elements you're fine.))


Samsung crying about innovation is hilarious, too. Samsung has never innovated in their entire existence. Even years ago, when making a BlackBerry clone called BlackJack.

LG is fuuuuuucked. Or... you know, they don't sell enough for it to be worth it probably.

Also - visual trade dress was held up a LOT less than software infringement. The stuff people have been clamouring about that Samsung has 'copied' for the last few months isn't really the stuff they focused on the most. Check out what the final say was on what people argued was the worst infringement - the Galaxy Tab.

 

[MarkMclovin]

Apple only sued one company. Look at the phones, guess which one, and guess why.

These? Because they are shit?

You got me, which was it?

 

[eastmen]

Lol worthy. Please go back to 2006, your amazing new things are there waiting.

Can you explain how pinch to zoom and double tap to zoom were vastly diffrent ? Because on my phones in 2004 I was using a stylus to double tap to zoom .

 

[G-Unit]

Samsung crying about innovation is hilarious, too. Samsung has never innovated in their entire existence. Even years ago, when making a BlackBerry clone called BlackJack.

I can't believe people dare to say such stupidities

 

[Fantomex]

I don't really see where the copying allegations even come from.

I have a Droid Charge, and I've used a Galaxy S2, and they don't really look like or feel like iPhones.

See that's your problem right there. You care too much since you own a Samsung. Who gives a crap what these companies win/lose, are you getting a fat check in the mail? No. If you want to see where the copying allegations come from read the documents, see the jury profiles. These weren't farmers from Iowa that made decisions on patent infringements, half the jury was in the tech industry. How are you so knowledgeable and intelligent and the jury isn't? To this day, talk to Japan, America or Germany, corporations there have been copied by Korean corporations for ages. Watch the BBC shows on Hyundai, Samsung and other biters. And then come back and see the bigger picture.

 

[Kinitari]

See that's your problem right there. You care too much since you own a Samsung. Who gives a crap what these companies win/lose, are you getting a fat check in the mail? No. If you want to see where the copying allegations come from read the documents, see the jury profiles. These weren't farmers from Iowa that made decisions on patent infringements, half the jury was in the tech industry. How are you so knowledgeable and intelligent and the jury isn't? To this day, talk to Japan, America or Germany, corporations there have been copied by Korean corporations for ages. Watch the BBC shows on Hyundai, Samsung and other biters. And then come back and see the bigger picture.

He doesn't have a Samsung. He has a Motorola phone.

 

[numble]

He doesn't have a Samsung. He has a Motorola phone.

LOL wut

 

[Kinitari]

LOL wut

Droid Charge is Samsung?! What the fuck, I thought only Motorola made 'droid' phones.

 

[jts]

Can you explain how pinch to zoom and double tap to zoom were vastly diffrent ? Because on my phones in 2004 I was using a stylus to double tap to zoom .

What the hell.

 

[Zeth]

Droid Charge is Samsung?! What the fuck, I thought only Motorola made 'droid' phones.

I think a lot of it has to do with Verizon's branding. It is strange though.

 

[Fantomex]

He doesn't have a Samsung. He has a Motorola phone.

My apologies, he said he's used a Samsung. The supply chain is also to blame in this. Did you guys know that in the headphones industry BEATS, Soul, Sol Republic, Skullcandy are all made by the same companies? They then sell new products to the clients based on technology they've either purchased or based on client requests. I think that part needs a major overhaul. because as a manufacturer and supplier you should not be able to take existing data provided by clients and them modify it and sell it to a competitor with slight modifications. Samsung at one point was part of this chain in the television and smart phone industries, then one day decided, we have the technology, let's make our own stuff! Granted they were owners of some technology.

 

[Kinitari]

My apologies, he said he's used a Samsung. The supply chain is also to blame in this. Did you guys know that in the headphones industry BEATS, Soul, Sol Republic, Skullcandy are all made by the same companies? They then sell new products to the clients based on technology they've either purchased or based on client requests. I think that part needs a major overhaul. because as a manufacturer and supplier you should not be able to take existing data provided by clients and them modify it and sell it to a competitor with slight modifications. Samsung at one point was part of this chain in the television and smart phone industries, then one day decided, we have the technology, let's make our own stuff! Granted they were owners of some technology.

Nono, you were right - he has a Samsung, the Droid Charge is a Samsung phone. It just uses the naming structure of Motorola phones.

 

[lunarworks]

Know what all of those phones have? Pinch-to-zoom.

Yes, but they also didn't make themselves lawsuit bait.

There's a certain degree of "copying" you can get away with before triggering the lawyer Bat Signal. If Apple sued everyone who copied a single one of their elements, they'd have 1000 lawsuits going on right now. When someone does go to far, they are the "example" to be made.

 

[numble]

First juror interview:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/

Excerpt:

"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents but we were debating about the prior art [about the same technology ythat Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin Hogan] was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself. In the beginning the debate was heated but it was still civil. Hogan holds patents so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent, what was prior art, because we had hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple.

"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down.

To those who are skeptical that the jury could reach a decision on more than 700 often complex patent questions, Ilagan said members of the jury took their job seriously and didn't take any short cuts.

"We weren't impatient," Ilagan said. "We wanted to do the right thing, and not skip any evidence. I think we were thorough."

Ilagan also said there was no hometown bias either.

"We weren't going for Apple," Ilagan said. "We were going by the judges instructions on how we should go about it and we stuck to that. We weren't thinking Apple or Samsung."

I'm pretty sure he means they skipped deliberating the first patent on the first day, and got to it later on.

CNet is doing a Katie Couric and spreading out the interview for more hits.

Edit: And they're updating the article by the minute, for some reason. Why not just put it altogether and post--it's not a liveblog.

 

[Puddles]

See that's your problem right there. You care too much since you own a Samsung. Who gives a crap what these companies win/lose, are you getting a fat check in the mail? No. If you want to see where the copying allegations come from read the documents, see the jury profiles. These weren't farmers from Iowa that made decisions on patent infringements, half the jury was in the tech industry. How are you so knowledgeable and intelligent and the jury isn't? To this day, talk to Japan, America or Germany, corporations there have been copied by Korean corporations for ages. Watch the BBC shows on Hyundai, Samsung and other biters. And then come back and see the bigger picture.

I don't care about Samsung's bottom-line in the slightest. The next phone I buy could be made by Motorola, LG, fuck it, even Apple. I'm not particularly interested in the history of who copied who in the past.

I care about the insanely idiotic precedent this sets for the smartphone industry, and for patents in general.

 

[kharma45]

These? Because they are shit?

You got me, which was it?

Haha, no.

Know what all of those phones have? Pinch-to-zoom.

The difference is, at least with Windows Phone, Microsoft have it licensed properly iirc from what I read.

 

[Fantomex]

I don't care about Samsung's bottom-line in the slightest. The next phone I buy could be made by Motorola, LG, fuck it, even Apple. I'm not particularly interested in the history of who copied who in the past.

I care about the insanely idiotic precedent this sets for the smartphone industry, and for patents in general.

I think we can all agree that the patent system requires a major overhaul. I think when you dig deep though a lot of companies borrowed from apple just as apple borrowed from other companies such as the Palm OS. I feel though that Samaung took a "yeah we took your lunch money and kissed your girlfriend, COME AT ME BRO!" and so they came at them to make an example out of them.

 

[lunarworks]

I care about the insanely idiotic precedent this sets for the smartphone industry, and for patents in general.

I'd be more worried if Samsung won. The message would be "Go ahead, copy the market leader with wild abandon!" Innovation would go nowhere if everyone was just playing follow the leader.

 

[Kinitari]

I'd be more worried if Samsung won. The message would be "Go ahead, copy the market leader with wild abandon!" Innovation would go nowhere if everyone was just playing follow the leader.

Just so we're on the same page, you don't have an issue with the software patents - like pinch to zoom? Because if I am not mistaken, that resulted in some of the most damages, and it was found across the board on all phones - the trade dress stuff was hit and miss for some phones. Do you think that Apple copied Android with the notification center, and should be punished for it?

 

[Zeth]

I'd be more worried if Samsung won. The message would be "Go ahead, copy the market leader with wild abandon!" Innovation would go nowhere if everyone was just playing follow the leader.

Yeah, the "THIS KILLS INNOVATION" line doesn't hold much water when you consider the alternatives if the courts ruled the other way. Again, patent system sucks, but you can't blame Apple for it. They're playing by the same rules as everyone else.

 

[Puddles]

I'd be more worried if Samsung won. The message would be "Go ahead, copy the market leader with wild abandon!" Innovation would go nowhere if everyone was just playing follow the leader.

We've seen plenty of innovation over the last few years.

Also, I still don't see an example of blatant copying, particularly when it comes to the trade dress argument. A rectangle with rounded edges and a screen? That's pretty vague. And they don't look all that similar. The buttons are much different, for one. There's no way anyone could go shopping for an iPhone and mistakenly come back with a Galaxy.

 

[D4Danger]

Did anyone explain how Apple kept their touch patents despite their being numerous example of prior art yet?

 

[Zeth]

Just so we're on the same page, you don't have an issue with the software patents - like pinch to zoom? Because if I am not mistaken, that resulted in some of the most damages, and it was found across the board on all phones - the trade dress stuff was hit and miss for some phones. Do you think that Apple copied Android with the notification center, and should be punished for it?

It helps that the rest of the software and hardware are not lifted wholesale from a competitor, as in some of Samsung's products. IIRC the notification patent requires an icon to appear in the status bar.

 

[Kinitari]

It helps that the rest of the software and hardware are not lifted wholesale from a competitor, as in some of Samsung's products. IIRC the notification patent requires an icon to appear in the status bar.

The software and hardware wasn't lifted wholesale from Apple - that is called counterfit. At best, hardware and software cues were taken from Apple - hardware being minimalistic black slate design, software being... pinch to zoom and bounce back. Infact the LG phone I posted earlier is probably more similar to the ihphone physically than the Galaxy S. I wonder if it has pinch to Zoom.

This is not counterfit. This is actually pretty normal.

In terms of the notification system - the spirit of the question remains the same, Lunar seems to feel as though taking cues from your competition is not a good thing to do - where you can see a lot of the Notification System Apple introduced is extremely similar to Android's implementation - do you feel as though by doing so, they have also 'copied' - on any level?

 

[numble]

We've seen plenty of innovation over the last few years.

Also, I still don't see an example of blatant copying, particularly when it comes to the trade dress argument. A rectangle with rounded edges and a screen? That's pretty vague. And they don't look all that similar. The buttons are much different, for one. There's no way anyone could go shopping for an iPhone and mistakenly come back with a Galaxy.

The evidence for copying for the jurors to decide wasn't just asking them to plainly look at the phones, it includes documents like this one where Samsung designers were continually instructed to change features to make their phones more like the iPhone:
http://allthingsd.com/20120807/sams...ld-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/

Emails from Google execs asking Samsung to stop making devices look too much like Apple products:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...ng-to-make-design-less-like-apple-lawyer-says

And emails by Samsung execs saying how the iPhone should be the standard they follow for design. Including saying they should "make something like the iPhone."
http://allthingsd.com/20120806/iphone-caused-crisis-of-design-at-samsung-memo/

This is paired by testimony of Samsung designers who said they never referenced or considered the iPhone in their designs. Even after all those emails and even a document that specifically references the iPhone in how they should alter their phone designs.

The jurors obviously latched on to that:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/

"Well, there were several. The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me. And also on the last day they showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video [testimony] from Korea, I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn't answer one of them. They didn't help their cause. "

 

[lunarworks]

Just so we're on the same page, you don't have an issue with the software patents - like pinch to zoom? Because if I am not mistaken, that resulted in some of the most damages, and it was found across the board on all phones - the trade dress stuff was hit and miss for some phones. Do you think that Apple copied Android with the notification center, and should be punished for it?

I'm divided on the "pinch to zoom" patent. Apple owns it, but it's become the standard way to zoom on touchscreens. Microsoft had no problem licensing it, though.

However, the "elastic" page end patent isn't essential in any way. It's a nice "finishing touch", a bit of polish for an OS.

As for the notification center, I'm divided too. It does seem to be an imitation, but no patent has been granted yet and the Nokia (Symbian) Belle OS has a very similar implementation to it.

We've seen plenty of innovation over the last few years.

Also, I still don't see an example of blatant copying, particularly when it comes to the trade dress argument. A rectangle with rounded edges and a screen? That's pretty vague. And they don't look all that similar. The buttons are much different, for one. There's no way anyone could go shopping for an iPhone and mistakenly come back with a Galaxy.

There's other phones with "rounded rectangle" that Apple didn't go after. It's a case of multiple design elements being combined. You can make a rounded rectangle that doesn't look a thing like an iPhone, and you won't raise an alarm.

 

[Kinitari]

I'm divided on the "pinch to zoom" patent. Apple owns it, but it's become the standard way to zoom on touchscreens. Microsoft had no problem licensing it, though.

The idea of licensing something like that makes my blood boil. It's akin to licensing dragging your finger up and down a screen to scroll the page.

However, the "elastic" page end patent isn't essential in any way. It's a nice "finishing touch", a bit of polish for an OS.

Sure, I can almost appreciate this position, the more I work in software, the less I do - but not everyone works in software.

As for the notification center, I'm divided too. It does seem to be an imitation, but no patent has been granted yet and the Nokia (Symbian) Belle OS has a very similar implementation to it.

Why are you divided? Would you not fault Samsung if Apple hadn't had made it's patent portfolio in time?

 

[CurlySaysX]

Everyone acts like Pinch to Zoom is so obvious. Of course it is in 2012, everyone has it. When the iPhone came out it was an amazing new thing that slowly became second nature. I recall Jobs' quote from the iPhone announcement, "And boy have we patented it!". Back then who would have thought?

This is sony demoing pinch to zoom gestures back in 2002 on a capacitive surface.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waSXkJBKT1s&feature=g-hist#t=02m20s
skip to 2:20
Double tap to zoom has also been around on Opera Mini/mobile since forever.

 

[Delusibeta]

I love the "Now Apple is going to sue everyone. Consumers will suffer." bullshit.

Actually, that's precisely what they're going to do, now they have secured the pinch-to-zoom patent. Pretty much every touch screen device is now an open target. From the lowest end of Orange phone to the PlayStation Vita, Apple now has enough ammo to patent troll any and all competition to annihilation.

 

[numble]

Why are you divided? Would you not fault Samsung if Apple hadn't had made it's patent portfolio in time?

He's saying the patent hasn't been granted yet, meaning it might not be granted due to prior art, etc.

 

[Zeth]

This is sony demoing pinch to zoom gestures back in 2002.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waSXkJBKT1s&feature=g-hist#t=02m20s
Double tap to zoom has also been around on Opera Mini/mobile since forever.

Their patents are for touch screens. The projectors don't qualify as prior art.

 

[kharma45]

Actually, that's precisely what they're going to do, now they have secured the pinch-to-zoom patent. Pretty much every touch screen device is now an open target. From the lowest end of Orange phone to the PlayStation Vita, Apple now has enough ammo to patent troll any and all competition to destruction.

Unless it's been correctly licensed for the device that it's being used on.

 

[lunarworks]

The idea of licensing something like that makes my blood boil. It's akin to licensing dragging your finger up and down a screen to scroll the page.

People own patents for all sorts of simple shit, unfortunately. Apple has to license all sorts of basic stuff we don't even think about.

Why are you divided? Would you not fault Samsung if Apple hadn't had made it's patent portfolio in time?

In the case of the notification centre, the validity of the patent application hasn't been settled on yet. Apple may be treading on thin ice with their implementation, but in that case so was Nokia, and possibly others. Plus, you can make something similar without necessarily infringing, as long as you work around the guidelines of the patent.

 

[joethefoo]

Apple should have just gone all the way:
Pinch to zoom
two fingered slide to zoom
one finger still and the other moving to zoom

Patent every simple gesture!

 

[Delusibeta]

Unless it's been correctly licensed for the device that it's being used on.

Considering AFAIK the licence fee was in the region of $30 per device, I think it's safe to say that no one licensed that shit.

 

[lunarworks]

Actually, that's precisely what they're going to do, now they have secured the pinch-to-zoom patent. Pretty much every touch screen device is now an open target. From the lowest end of Orange phone to the PlayStation Vita, Apple now has enough ammo to patent troll any and all competition to annihilation.

Apple typically only launches high profile lawsuits against companies that flagrantly cross a line.

Even so, everyone's going to be a bit more careful for the time being.

 

[numble]

Considering AFAIK the licence fee was in the region of $30 per device, I think it's safe to say that no one licensed that shit.

That probably includes trade dress, and most people can get around trade dress by designing a different-looking device. The final costs from Apple itself are less than $7.15, far less than Google asking for 2.25% of sale price for the right to play h.264 video.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieg...ined-about-samsung-copying-in-2010-live-blog/
This is the Apple royalty expert at trial:

11:07: Musika is explaining what he means by “reasonable royalties.” He looked at Apple’s utility and design patents and whether Apple wanted to license them; how much money Samsung made; how much Apple lost; what the perceived value of the patents are, etc. Musika identified an individual rate for each patent: $3.10 (Patent 915- Apple design patent), $2.02 (Patent 381) and $2.02 (Patent 163). Apple has come into the market on the basis of its design…and its designs are of critical economic importance to Apple.”

With design patent and trade dress, Musika got to $24 per unit in royalty payments. If you just got calculated damages based on royalty payments, it’s about $540 million.

915 is pinch to zoom.
381 is bounceback.
163 is tap to zoom.

 

[Kinitari]

He's saying the patent hasn't been granted yet, meaning it might not be granted due to prior art, etc.

Who knows why it might not be granted, I wasn't going for a legal argument, I am trying to understand the emotional 'it's obviously copying' argument. By his own admission, he thinks the notification centre was inspired by Android - and he feels conflicted by that, probably because he has a firm position on 'not copying'.

People own patents for all sorts of simple shit, unfortunately. Apple has to license all sorts of basic stuff we don't even think about.

Which, is a problem a lot of software developers have. They hate it, so damn much. This is why situations where it is upheld the way it is makes them so damn upset.

In the case of the notification centre, the validity of the patent application hasn't been settled on yet. Apple may be treading on thin ice with their implementation, but in that case so was Nokia, and possibly others. Plus, you can make something similar without necessarily infringing, as long as you work around the guidelines of the patent.

The issue is that this means that software developers now have to have lawyers poring over software patents right next to them in the development process. It would be a ridiculous thing to expect, that these simplistic, overarching patents should all be worked around.

 

[Lynn616]

This is sony demoing pinch to zoom gestures back in 2002 on a capacitive surface.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waSXkJBKT1s&feature=g-hist#t=02m20s
skip to 2:20
Double tap to zoom has also been around on Opera Mini/mobile since forever.

I dont see pinch to zoom holding up for long. Will be overturned eventually.

 

[Despera]

How the fuck are they allowed to patent shit like that?

 

[buhdeh]

How the fuck are they allowed to patent shit like that?

Better yet, how are there people that are happy with it? I guess as long as people can line up for their yearly iPhone update, they couldn't care less how this affects anyone else.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

This just seals it. I'm never buying another Apple product and I'm shelving my iPods for good. Apple will never get another penny from me for ad long as I live.

 

[lunarworks]

Which, is a problem a lot of software developers have. They hate it, so damn much. This is why situations where it is upheld the way it is makes them so damn upset.



The issue is that this means that software developers now have to have lawyers poring over software patents right next to them in the development process. It would be a ridiculous thing to expect, that these simplistic, overarching patents should all be worked around.

Software patents are a double-edged sword. On one hand, if you're a small guy and have a great idea, it prevents a powerful software company with a crack team of programmers from copying it wholesale. On the other hand, as you said, lawyers and lawyers and lawyers.

Patents are essential, but they need to be reformed. Especially with a "use it or lose it" clause, and tighter expiration limits, since software moves much faster than other industries.

 

[Vyer]

This just seals it. I'm never buying another Apple product and I'm shelving my iPods for good. Apple will never get another penny from me for ad long as I live.

I've always been able to tell how undecided you have been on the issue up till now.

 

[virtuoso88]

How the fuck are they allowed to patent shit like that?

Because the general public are morons and have no understanding on how software development works.

 

[zedge]

Better yet, how are there people that are happy with it? I guess as long as people can line up for their yearly iPhone update, they couldn't care less how this affects anyone else.

.

 

[numble]

Because the general public are morons and have no understanding on how software development works.

The jury foreman is an engineer that is an owner of a software patent himself. Others worked in tech, including another engineer.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...ay-have-leaned-on-engineer-patent-holder.html

 

[HollovVpo1nt]

I'm never buying an apple product again and will do everything withing my powers to prevent anyone from buying an apple, whenever I can.

That said, it is samsungs own fault they put up such a lousy defence.