PDA

View Full Version : Apple Seeking $2.5 Billion from Samsung in U.S. Patent and Design Infringement Trial




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Jul 24, 2012, 09:13 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/24/apple-seeking-2-5-billion-from-samsung-in-u-s-patent-and-design-infringement-trial/)


FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller reports (http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/apple-seeks-25-billion-in-damages-from.html) that recently-filed court documents in the ongoing U.S. patent and design dispute between Apple and Samsung reveal that Apple is seeking a total of $2.5 billion from Samsung to cover alleged infringement by Samsung's mobile products. From the court filing:Samsung has reaped billions of dollars in profits and caused Apple to lose hundreds of millions of dollars through its violation of Apple's intellectual property. Apple conservatively estimates that as of March 31, 2012, Samsung has been unjustly enriched by about [redacted; presumably $2 billion] and has additionally cost Apple about $500 million in lost profits. Apple also conservatively estimates that it is entitled to over $25 million in reasonable royalty damages on the proportionately small set of remaining sales for which it cannot obtain an award of Samsung's profits or Apple's own lost profits, for a combined total of $2.525 billion.http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/05/apple_samsung_logos.jpg


Mueller notes that Apple is not allowed to collect both royalties and profits from a single device, and thus focuses its claims on the $2 billion figure related to design infringement, as that tactic would allow Apple to request both lost profits of its own and unfairly earned profits by Samsung on those devices. In calculating the royalty rates it believes it is owed for Samsung's use of Apple's intellectual property, Apple arrived at the following figures:These are the per-unit royalties that Apple calculated for its different intellectual property rights-in-suit:

- $2.02 for the "overscroll bounce" (or "rubber-banding") '318 patent
- $3.10 for the "scrolling API" '915 patent
- $2.02 for the "tap to zoom and navigate" '163 patent
- $24 for use of any of Apple's design patents or trade dress rightsOn a separate note, Apple's filings also reveal its estimates of how much it should pay in royalties for Samsung's patents, which are related to 3G standards and are required to be licensed under fair and reasonable terms. While Samsung has been requesting a royalty rate of 2.4% on Apple's sales of 3G devices, Apple argues that the amount should only be one-half cent per unit based on Samsung's small share of essential 3G patents and a belief that the royalty should be calculated on the cost of the baseband processor rather than the entire device.

As part of the ongoing court case, Apple CEO Tim Cook met with Samsung CEO Choi Gee-sung (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/05/23/patent-talks-between-apple-and-samsung-chief-executives-yield-little-progress/) back in late May, but the negotiations yielded little progress. Reuters reported yesterday (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/23/us-apple-samsung-idUSBRE86M19220120723) that the two executives met again last week but that the sides remain far apart in their valuations of their respective intellectual property.

Article Link: Apple Seeking $2.5 Billion from Samsung in U.S. Patent and Design Infringement Trial (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/24/apple-seeking-2-5-billion-from-samsung-in-u-s-patent-and-design-infringement-trial/)



ChrisTX
Jul 24, 2012, 09:22 AM
Apple is being absolutely ridiculous Here.

hexx
Jul 24, 2012, 09:23 AM
Apple is being absolutely ridiculous Here.

why?

Motawa
Jul 24, 2012, 09:24 AM
bravo apple... just bravo... :rolleyes:

EbookReader
Jul 24, 2012, 09:25 AM
tap to zoom is a patent?

keysofanxiety
Jul 24, 2012, 09:26 AM
Apple is being absolutely ridiculous Here.

See, you say that -- but look back 5 years to the introduction of the iPhone, and everything was utterly revolutionary. Steve mentioned that they patented the Hell out of it, and that they intend to protect their intellectual property. The patents mentioned in this lawsuit are just some of those.

As much as I hate these constant patent battles, I'm with Apple on this one.

Swordylove
Jul 24, 2012, 09:27 AM
tap to zoom is a patent?

Was just about to ask that... :rolleyes:

HatterZero
Jul 24, 2012, 09:28 AM
So Apple is being ridiculous with their patents but Samsung is not?

MonkeySee....
Jul 24, 2012, 09:28 AM
I have zero respect for Samsung.

Hit them hard, Apple.

Tones2
Jul 24, 2012, 09:29 AM
See, you say that -- but look back 5 years to the introduction of the iPhone, and everything was utterly revolutionary. Steve mentioned that they patented the Hell out of it, and that they intend to protect their intellectual property. The patents mentioned in this lawsuit are just some of those.

As much as I hate these constant patent battles, I'm with Apple on this one.

No the first iPhone wasn't revolutionary. It didn't even runs 3rd party apps, for heaven's sake. The only thing different was multi-touch. I had a touch based Windows CE based phone at the time that ran circles around it. It's just that Apple made smartphones POPULAR because of the core fanatical fanbase.

They need to stop these ridiculous lawsuits.

hkenneth
Jul 24, 2012, 09:30 AM
Pls, I beg you not to use this logo again ... it annoys my visual cortex >.<

benpatient
Jul 24, 2012, 09:30 AM
why?

The overscroll-bounce visual effect Apple "patent" is supposedly worth $2.02 per unit, but "essential 3G patents" should be $0.005 per unit.

benthewraith
Jul 24, 2012, 09:30 AM
500 million in lost profits you say... you made $11.6 billion in net profits in the second quarter of 2012 alone.

Zunjine
Jul 24, 2012, 09:31 AM
No the first iPhone wasn't revolutionary. It didn't even runs 3rd party apps, for heaven's sake. The only thing different was multi-touch. I had a touch based Windows CE based phone at the time that ran circles around it. It's just that Apple made smartphones POPULAR because of the core fanatical fanbase.

Amazing. Just amazing. Such utter dribble and ahistorical nonsense.

Rocketman
Jul 24, 2012, 09:31 AM
When they met, they probably reviewed the lawyers positions who are smarter than them, said screw it, and had a few drinks.

Then they spent their time on more valuable matters like status of supply and manufacturing work, and future endeavors between one of the world's largest manufacturers and one of the world's largest sellers.

I wonder what they had to drink and eat?

Rocketman

ristlin
Jul 24, 2012, 09:31 AM
I like the part where Apple fanboys and Samsung holdouts fight it out on behalf of the lawyers in a massive battlefield of good versus evil.

Zunjine
Jul 24, 2012, 09:33 AM
The overscroll-bounce visual effect Apple "patent" is supposedly worth $2.02 per unit, but "essential 3G patents" should be $0.005 per unit.

The important word here is 'essential'. You don't NEED bouncy lists but you do need the 3G patents. Hence Apple doesn't need to let you have them cheaply.

dona83
Jul 24, 2012, 09:33 AM
I could see tap to zoom being a standard, but copying over scroll bounce would be a blatant infringement.

BigMcGuire
Jul 24, 2012, 09:34 AM
Isn't it true that the only ones that really benefit from this are the patent lawyers? Sure Apple is trying to stick it to Samsung but 2.5 billion? I doubt they'll get anywhere near that, and the lawyers get a huge % of whatever is agreed?

HatterZero
Jul 24, 2012, 09:35 AM
500 million in lost profits you say... you made $11.6 billion in net profits in the second quarter of 2012 alone.

The number one goal of a company that is non profit is to make as much money as possible wether it be Apple or Samsung, there is never "just enough" profits to be earned. 500 million is still 500 million dosen't matter if you only made 10 bucks last year or 10 billion.

As always I do not support nor condem I merely speak the truth.

Zunjine
Jul 24, 2012, 09:35 AM
I could see tap to zoom being a standard, but over scroll bounce should not have been copied.

Why should tap to zoom be a standard?

Just because it's the best way to do something doesn't mean it should be given away for free. Something being popular, similarly, doesn't make it suddenly a defacto standard in terms of patents and why should it? That would create a perverse incentive to try to make sure your ideas aren't too good and don't get too popular.

Rogifan
Jul 24, 2012, 09:35 AM
Oh goodie another MR thread that will turn into 500+ posts about how apple is evil an a big bully. :rolleyes:

HatterZero
Jul 24, 2012, 09:36 AM
Isn't it true that the only ones that really benefit from this are the patent lawyers? Sure Apple is trying to stick it to Samsung but 2.5 billion? I doubt they'll get anywhere near that, and the lawyers get a huge % of whatever is agreed?

I am sure its like 2% or 5% not a HUGE % but a truck load of cash still when dealing with 2.5 billion

MonkeySee....
Jul 24, 2012, 09:37 AM
I could see tap to zoom being a standard, but copying over scroll bounce would be a blatant infringement.

You could be Googles next lawyer :D

ChrisTX
Jul 24, 2012, 09:37 AM
See, you say that -- but look back 5 years to the introduction of the iPhone, and everything was utterly revolutionary. Steve mentioned that they patented the Hell out of it, and that they intend to protect their intellectual property. The patents mentioned in this lawsuit are just some of those.

As much as I hate these constant patent battles, I'm with Apple on this one.

And I agree with that 100%, but Apple seems to suggest that consumers may be confused by Samsungs offerings and buy their product on accident thinking they purchased an Apple one instead. However I can't imagine anyone is dumb enough to accidentally buy a Galaxy Tab by mistake thinking they were purchasing an iPad.

xanagu
Jul 24, 2012, 09:37 AM
Pathetic apple, so pathetic....

semitry
Jul 24, 2012, 09:39 AM
Once again, the actual code/implementation should be patented not the general idea. If a kid can code "tap to zoom" or "slide to unlock" in his basement in a few days, it should not be patented. Retarded.

Zunjine
Jul 24, 2012, 09:40 AM
Pathetic apple, so pathetic....

Yeah - because wanting people to not rip off your designs is pathetic. Put yourself in the shoes of the risk taking companies who spend millions on R&D to find the right solution and then watch as others copy them - how would you react?

shigzeo
Jul 24, 2012, 09:40 AM
If only Samsung were a hardware maker/supplier and not into everything under the sun, and the largest conglomerate the world has seen, something like this suit might hurt them.

But it won't. Some of their pride might be hurt abroad, but in their home country they are known for knocking off everything and terrorising the truly puny competition.

Apple, who look to the rest of the world like a bully, may have more to lose than that pirate/mafia that half run south Korea.

HatterZero
Jul 24, 2012, 09:40 AM
And I agree with that 100%, but Apple seems to suggest that consumers may be confused by Samsungs offerings and buy their product on accident thinking they purchased an Apple one instead. However I can't imagine anyone is dumb enough to accidentally buy a Galaxy Tab by mistake thinking they were purchasing an iPad.

You should work in retail. If I had a 10 cents every time someone came up to me saying, I bought this iPad here and I cant find a case that works with it and it be either a Samsung or Android tablet I could retire. Now wether they call all tablets iPads or not I am still not 100% sure but some people really don't know the difference.

Mattie Num Nums
Jul 24, 2012, 09:42 AM
Someone better patent the color green. I hear its worth billions.

ChrisTX
Jul 24, 2012, 09:42 AM
No the first iPhone wasn't revolutionary. It didn't even runs 3rd party apps, for heaven's sake. The only thing different was multi-touch. I had a touch based Windows CE based phone at the time that ran circles around it. It's just that Apple made smartphones POPULAR because of the core fanatical fanbase.

They need to stop these ridiculous lawsuits.

That is where you are absolutely wrong. If your Windows CE based phone truly ran laps around the original iPhone as you suggest. Then MS would still be developing Windows mobile. Let's not get crazy here, the first iPhone revolutionized the mobile industry, and changed things forever. I just think it's ludicris for Apple to put a ridiculously high number on things. However Samsung tends to do more copying than anyone else these days.

KnightWRX
Jul 24, 2012, 09:42 AM
Once again, the actual code/implementation should be patented not the general idea.

Code/implementation is covered by copyright already. Patents do not cover code/implementations.

kwfl
Jul 24, 2012, 09:42 AM
The only way this will end is if apple loses so badly that they cannot afford to go to court again. I really wish they lose. I buy apple products, however, they are just a ripoff if the only way to put a high price while maintains sales is through shutting competitions. I can see the evil inside apple.

xanagu
Jul 24, 2012, 09:43 AM
Once again, the actual code/implementation should be patented not the general idea. If a kid can code "tap to zoom" or "slide to unlock" in his basement in a few days, it should not be patented. Retarded.

try to make the tards understand this

hot spare
Jul 24, 2012, 09:43 AM
I have zero respect for Samsung.

Hit them hard, Apple.

as if Samsung (or Apple) cares about your sentiment??

Swordylove
Jul 24, 2012, 09:44 AM
Why should tap to zoom be a standard?

Because that's just as innovative as "Press X to shoot" :rolleyes:

hexx
Jul 24, 2012, 09:45 AM
The overscroll-bounce visual effect Apple "patent" is supposedly worth $2.02 per unit, but "essential 3G patents" should be $0.005 per unit.

there you explained it to yourself - SEP patents should be granted on Fair Reasonable and Non-discriminatory bases. Apple's patent isn't SEP so they can charge as much as they want. I know how it sounds but that's how it is.

gnasher729
Jul 24, 2012, 09:45 AM
And I agree with that 100%, but Apple seems to suggest that consumers may be confused by Samsungs offerings and buy their product on accident thinking they purchased an Apple one instead. However I can't imagine anyone is dumb enough to accidentally buy a Galaxy Tab by mistake thinking they were purchasing an iPad.

I can. Grandma wants a Christmas present for her granddaughter who wants an iPad. She saw on a website what they look like. She's never, ever heard of Apple. Apples are something that grows on trees to her. She goes to the store and says "I want an iPad". Salesman says "I've got just the right thing for you". And since Samsung is a well known name, it wouldn't occur to her that Samsung isn't actually the maker of iPads.

And then there are plenty of people who, for whatever reason, want to buy something that at least looks like an iPad.

simpleankit
Jul 24, 2012, 09:46 AM
2.5 billion is not even one month of Samsung's investment expenditure. And it is obvious that Apple will never get any where near to even this figure, I guess at max to few hundred million dollars. I bet Apple has spent more than that in litigation expenditure only

ristlin
Jul 24, 2012, 09:46 AM
Isn't it true that the only ones that really benefit from this are the patent lawyers? Sure Apple is trying to stick it to Samsung but 2.5 billion? I doubt they'll get anywhere near that, and the lawyers get a huge % of whatever is agreed?

Between 15% and 30%. It may be different in this case, since these are Apple lawyers who probably get a salary, which would exclude them from the %

Winni
Jul 24, 2012, 09:47 AM
Oh goodie another MR thread that will turn into 500+ posts about how apple is evil an a big bully. :rolleyes:

Well, they are. Just like any other big company on this planet. But in many aspects they are more annoying than other players. I can't hear the old fairy tale "everybody is stealing from us" anymore while they are stealing the ideas from others at the same time. It's sad that the Growl people didn't patent their notification system, for example.

Zunjine
Jul 24, 2012, 09:47 AM
Because that's just as innovative as "Press X to shoot" :rolleyes:

I see. And that's why someone had already come up with it before Apple patented it?

That's the problem with some people here. They're only seeing this in hindsight. A great idea always seems obvious in hindsight.

ristlin
Jul 24, 2012, 09:48 AM
2.5 billion is not even one month of Samsung's investment expenditure. And it is obvious that Apple will never get any where near to even this figure, I guess at max to few hundred million dollars. I bet Apple has spent more than that in litigation expenditure only

They've been on this case for so long at this point anything to bring the tally to zero is a win in their minds.

SvenSvenson
Jul 24, 2012, 09:49 AM
I could see tap to zoom being a standard, but copying over scroll bounce would be a blatant infringement.

I don't think it was a standard until the iPhone - I don't recall any other touch-screen device (going back to the Psions & later the iPaqs of the '90s and probably earleir stuff) having tap-to-zoom.

gnasher729
Jul 24, 2012, 09:49 AM
Once again, the actual code/implementation should be patented not the general idea. If a kid can code "tap to zoom" or "slide to unlock" in his basement in a few days, it should not be patented. Retarded.

There are things that are obvious in hindsight, but nobody thought of them for a long time. And isn't it common sense that if everybody wants to use these things, but they didn't come up with the idea until Apple did, then it is absolutely not obvious?

MonkeySee....
Jul 24, 2012, 09:49 AM
as if Samsung (or Apple) cares about your sentiment??

And I don't give a toss about you. Move along shall we?

rotarydialz
Jul 24, 2012, 09:50 AM
Once again, the actual code/implementation should be patented not the general idea. If a kid can code "tap to zoom" or "slide to unlock" in his basement in a few days, it should not be patented. Retarded.
Just like Amazon owns clicking to purchase? Deal with it.

ristlin
Jul 24, 2012, 09:51 AM
Well, they are. Just like any other big company on this planet. But in many aspects they are more annoying than other players. I can't hear the old fairy tale "everybody is stealing from us" anymore while they are stealing the ideas from others at the same time. It's sad that the Growl people didn't patent their notification system, for example.

Hate to say this, but their fault for not patenting it. Same goes with the guy who inventing the spreadsheet. These are common refrains.

The problem is small companies/individuals grossly undervalue their innovation until someone else comes along, repackages it, patents it, and makes it ubiquitous. Then everyone has to have it.

SvenSvenson
Jul 24, 2012, 09:51 AM
Once again, the actual code/implementation should be patented not the general idea. If a kid can code "tap to zoom" or "slide to unlock" in his basement in a few days, it should not be patented. Retarded.

So if YOU came up with a brilliant but simple idea, that no-one else had thought of, abd used it to create a device or gadget that could be worth millions, you wouldn't object if someone took that idea, implemented it in a different way and started to compete?

ugahairydawgs
Jul 24, 2012, 09:52 AM
I really don't get why people want to vilify Apple here. They have IP which they feel has been outright stolen (Google pretty much admitted as much when they started asking the Senate Judiciary Committee to help establish a lot of Apple's IP as standard tech) and are now seeking to be recouped for the losses.

We all hate law suits (well...all of us except for the lawyers). They make most of the general public roll their eyes and for good reason. For every suit that is warranted there are many more that are on par with the lady that sued McDonald's for making the coffee too hot after she spilled it on herself. Personally I don't see this as that.

Early versions of Android were absolute crap. It has gotten a lot better over the years based largely on features that Apple feels were lifted straight from their OS. As a publicly traded company it would be irresponsible for them anything other than defend their IP as vigorously as possible, especially when the accused culprit is one of their most serious competitors .

ristlin
Jul 24, 2012, 09:52 AM
Just like Amazon owns clicking to purchase? Deal with it.

Agreed. As much as we hate the concept until the policy is changed it is the way it works.

Nungster
Jul 24, 2012, 09:53 AM
tap to zoom is a patent?

Before Apple it was click WITH A MOUSE/POINTER

Less we forget when iOS came out critics cited how cumbersome using a FINGER would be and where was the ALL MIGHTY STYLUS.

Not to mention when the iPad debuted, how silly and gimped it was because it HAD NO KEYBOARD

markjerard
Jul 24, 2012, 09:53 AM
Apple is being absolutely ridiculous Here.

No it is not ridiculous Chris.

If you can patent Beer on a Stick...
http://invention-protection.com/pdf_patents/4350712.pdf

or a Slot Machine-Shaped Toaster...
http://invention-protection.com/pdf_patents/patd545112.pdf...

...why should it be ridiculous for Apple to patent their inventions?
If they have been awarded a patent, they are fully within their rights to fight for damages if someone wants to take a shortcut and profit from illegally copying their work.
When the patent runs out anyone can copy it.
But until then the law is the law, not just when it's convenient for you.

ristlin
Jul 24, 2012, 09:54 AM
as if Samsung (or Apple) cares about your sentiment??

Pretty sure they care.

Ryan John
Jul 24, 2012, 09:54 AM
Figures pulled straight from the butt of an Apple lawyer.

It looks a bit like ours $24, has a bouncy effect $2.02. Your essential patent $0.005, Apple smacking of desperation $priceless!

Swordylove
Jul 24, 2012, 09:55 AM
I see. And that's why someone had already come up with it before Apple patented it?


I bet someone already had. They're just not unreasonable enough to go patent it.

schmidm77
Jul 24, 2012, 09:55 AM
Code/implementation is covered by copyright already. Patents do not cover code/implementations.

Wrong. Take an example the idea of using a metal bit to drill a hole in a piece of wood. That idea is and never was patentable; but actual implementations, for example the Cook auger bit, were patentable. An idea is just a non-concrete figment in somebody's head, patents are for protecting implementations of ideas.

Nungster
Jul 24, 2012, 09:56 AM
Pathetic apple, so pathetic....

When you become an inventor, creator, or engineer you will grasp the concept of Intellectual Property and ownership.

Zunjine
Jul 24, 2012, 09:59 AM
I bet someone already had. They're just not unreasonable enough to go patent it.

I see. Because wanting to benefit from your own work is 'unreasonable'.

Let's put it another way, how would you feel if your boss sent your paycheck to me instead? After all, you surely wouldn't be so unreasonable as to expect YOU to benefit from your work, would you?

Nungster
Jul 24, 2012, 09:59 AM
I bet someone already had. They're just not unreasonable enough to go patent it.

If they had invented the iPhone (or iPad) then THEY WOULD HAVE invented the iPhone (or iPad). LOL

I was using my PocketPC Treo and Jornada, and looking at an HP NotePad with a swivel mount when these devices debuted. That was where the major PC and Smartphone makers were heading.

Apple changed all that. So yes, they should own the rights to that, especially when they properly patented it.

ristlin
Jul 24, 2012, 09:59 AM
When you become an inventor, creator, or engineer you will grasp the concept of Intellectual Property and ownership.

Indeed... Or once you have stuff stolen from you. It hurts like a bitch. The worst part is that for most people, that ONE thing that was stolen is the best they will ever come up with. So everything else they spend $$ protecting down the road doesn't really pay off. As Steve Jobs said, Apple is very fortunate to have several great products come out in his lifetime.

tomsamson
Jul 24, 2012, 10:00 AM
Besides the point that software patents in their current form are complete nonsense in general as any serious honest developer could tell you, its insanity that Apple got patents granted for "overscroll bounce" (or "rubber-banding") ,"scrolling API" and "tap to zoom and navigate".
All of those were things used in many websites for many years before Apple patented them.
Its ridiculous when a company gets patents granted for things which are implemented by many others in many ways before.
I hope someone battles Apple to make those patents become invalidated at some point.
I like many of Apple´s products but this manner of trying to hold back the competition by constantly pushing one ridiculous patent lawsuit after the other really goes against free open market rules and proper fair competition in every way.
It becomes purely about which side piles up more ridiculous patents for common concepts to then hold back the competition, the opposite of what the patent system was intended for.

ristlin
Jul 24, 2012, 10:01 AM
If they had invented the iPhone (or iPad) then THEY WOULD HAVE invented the iPhone (or iPad). LOL

I was using my PocketPC Treo and Jornada, and looking at an HP NotePad with a swivel mount when these devices debuted. That was where the major PC and Smartphone makers were heading.

Apple changed all that. So yes, they should own the rights to that, especially when they properly patented it.

Aye. That's pretty much Mark's sentiment on the Social Network (if it is at all accurate...)

----------

Figures pulled straight from the butt of an Apple lawyer.

It looks a bit like ours $24, has a bouncy effect $2.02. Your essential patent $0.005, Apple smacking of desperation $priceless!

Did you read the article, LOL. Go read it again, carefully.

lifeinhd
Jul 24, 2012, 10:02 AM
And I agree with that 100%, but Apple seems to suggest that consumers may be confused by Samsungs offerings and buy their product on accident thinking they purchased an Apple one instead. However I can't imagine anyone is dumb enough to accidentally buy a Galaxy Tab by mistake thinking they were purchasing an iPad.

Sadly, after perusing this site (notalwaysright.com), I can. Makes you lose faith in humanity :o

pubwvj
Jul 24, 2012, 10:03 AM
I wish they, the patent offices, would implement the simple, straight forward, correct answer to this. Limit the time of patents drastically - 3 years - and only allow them for actual implementers (no trolls). This way Apple could have it's little exclusivity for three years and then it goes to the public domain. The fact is they didn't invent in a vacuum. They built on the shoulders of others. The length of patent exclusivity should be extremely short for fast moving industries like software, tech devices, etc.

semitry
Jul 24, 2012, 10:03 AM
Just like Amazon owns clicking to purchase? Deal with it.

That should not be patentable as well.


So if YOU came up with a brilliant but simple idea, that no-one else had thought of, abd used it to create a device or gadget that could be worth millions, you wouldn't object if someone took that idea, implemented it in a different way and started to compete?

Not something that a designer/analyst could tell a programmer and have him come up with a solution in a few days. We should let drug companies patent curing of cancer or vaccine for the flu instead of the actual drug that does it. Same idea and I bet none of you would be ok with that unless it was Apple that owned the patent of course. :)

ChrisTX
Jul 24, 2012, 10:03 AM
I can. Grandma wants a Christmas present for her granddaughter who wants an iPad. She saw on a website what they look like. She's never, ever heard of Apple. Apples are something that grows on trees to her. She goes to the store and says "I want an iPad". Salesman says "I've got just the right thing for you". And since Samsung is a well known name, it wouldn't occur to her that Samsung isn't actually the maker of iPads.

And then there are plenty of people who, for whatever reason, want to buy something that at least looks like an iPad.

Wouldn't grandma be smart enough to know that when the box doesn't actually say the words "iPad" to keep going until the store clerk handed her an actually iPad? I work retail and when someone asks for a particular product they leave with that product. If they ask for suggestions, or seem interested in something else, it might be a different story but for the most part they tend to know what they are leaving my store with. Not disagreeing with you but it seems ridiculous to me that people can't tell the difference between the words iPad on a box, vs. Galaxt Tab, Asus Transformer, or the name of some lesser known tablet.

IKBest
Jul 24, 2012, 10:05 AM
Its not like they need the money haha :rolleyes:

Sora
Jul 24, 2012, 10:06 AM
Only 2.5 Billion?? I guess that would cover legal fees.
Sue the piss out of them Apple!

ristlin
Jul 24, 2012, 10:06 AM
Besides the point that software patents in their current form are complete nonsense in general as any serious honest developer could tell you, its insanity that Apple got patents granted for "overscroll bounce" (or "rubber-banding") ,"scrolling API" and "tap to zoom and navigate".
All of those were things used in many websites for many years before Apple patented them.
Its ridiculous when a company gets patents granted for things which are implemented by many others in many ways before.
I hope someone battles Apple to make those patents become invalidated at some point.
I like many of Apple´s products but this manner of trying to hold back the competition by constantly pushing one ridiculous patent lawsuit after the other really goes against free open market rules and proper fair competition in every way.
It becomes purely about which side piles up more ridiculous patents for common concepts to then hold back the competition, the opposite of what the patent system was intended for.

You can't blame the patent office. When they first started receiving patents for different functions on the computer they probably never saw anything like it in their lives and granted them without much question. That developed a precedent that is still in effect and almost impossible to reverse now. This is something the Supreme Court has to change (much like when they stepped in for patenting Genes).

BurchBoy
Jul 24, 2012, 10:06 AM
And I agree with that 100%, but Apple seems to suggest that consumers may be confused by Samsungs offerings and buy their product on accident thinking they purchased an Apple one instead. However I can't imagine anyone is dumb enough to accidentally buy a Galaxy Tab by mistake thinking they were purchasing an iPad.

I seriously saw a woman on a stage when someone handed her an HTC Android phone, that looked nothing like an iPhone, say "I can't do iPhones! I can't work iPhones! They're too complicated. Here take this back!"

Another friend of mine bought a Metro PCS Samsung Android and said, "Oh, this isn't an iPhone?" when I tried to explain to him that he could never install the same apps as me.

The average person isn't a tech savvy MacRumors/Engadget commenter.

Zunjine
Jul 24, 2012, 10:07 AM
Not something that a designer/analyst could tell a programmer and have him come up with a solution in a few days. We should let drug companies patent curing of cancer or vaccine for the flu instead of the actual drug that does it. Same idea and I bet none of you would be ok with that unless it was Apple that owned the patent of course. :)

Nonsense. If this were a comparable example the patent would have to be just for 'Being able to easily navigate data on a screen'.

These are solutions to problems that Apple had to find in order to create a viable product. Each solution had to be tested and refined and improved and many would have been scrapped - all this would have created risks, huge risks, that they had to take in order to produce the solution. They didn't just patent 'the best way to do x'.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 24, 2012, 10:07 AM
Once again, the actual code/implementation should be patented not the general idea. If a kid can code "tap to zoom" or "slide to unlock" in his basement in a few days, it should not be patented. Retarded.

That is the territory of copyrights, not patents. The courts allowed reverse engineering of the IBM Bios system for goodness sake and that is OBVIOUS cloning of the technology, but as long as they didn't COPY the code, it was allowed because there is more than one way to skin a cat!

All this crap would be like Ford trying to sue all the other car companies because they also use assembly lines when Ford used it first for cars. There are so many products that look "similar" because they are similar in nature. All cars are similar, all microwaves are similar, most cell phones were similar, etc. It's the individual products' merits that count, not the similarity of the type of product. In that regard, Apple SHOULD be competing on the merits of its iPad, iPhone, etc., not WHINING IN COURT that Samsung is ALSO selling a 'similar' tablet computer. Apple did not invent the tablet for god's sake! They existed well before the iPad came out. They are simply popular off the iPhone's existing App library, etc.

Saying Samsung's products look similar to the iPad is like saying Windows looks similar to OSX (or look at Linux; they have themes to look like either one). Big Deal. Is the underlying operating system the same? NO. Is the code the same? NO. Then they have NO CASE. All software patents are ridiculous as software is protected by copyright and that is sufficient for them as a judge recently ruled.

SCREW these sue happy loser companies. Let them compete on merit like Capitalism meant them to, not suing like pissy little lawyers who purposely write everything in "lawyer speak" so you have to pay them hundreds of dollars an hour to interpret their own BS in court and small companies go out of business because they can't afford the legal costs, not because they were wrong. Lawyers should be abolished from the Earth. They're greedy scum bags that are nothing more than glorified blue collared THIEVES whose job is to take what they didn't earn and what isn't theirs through loop holes and other shady practices. I know this first hand. The world would be better off without them and simpler laws that an average person could defend themselves against. There should be no need for a lawyer EVER on this planet. It's like saying there's a need for THIEVES on this planet. Bullcrap. Either you are guilty or you are not guilty. Technicalities and loop holes are the territory of people trying to evade the law, not follow it. Justice should be about finding out whether a person did the crime, not who can afford the better lawyer (which seems to be all too often who wins court cases which explains the multitudes of people being released from prison on DNA cases these days and makes you wonder exactly how many cases were correct to begin with).

People need to stand up against bad laws passed by crooked politicians and take their countries back from the SCUM BAG THIEVES that didn't represent them in good faith. The system needs overhauled.

The bottom line is if Samsung didn't use Apple's code, they didn't do anything wrong. Everything else is a crock (especially software patents which are absurd and don't exist except in the mind of crooked thieving lawyers). Capitalism isn't based monopolies of general ideas. It's based on COMPETITION and it's time these companies stopped whining and stopped suing and started competing for my dollars instead of thinking they're just entitled to anything they want to charge!

ristlin
Jul 24, 2012, 10:09 AM
I seriously saw a woman on a stage when someone handed her an HTC Android phone, that looked nothing like an iPhone, say "I can't do iPhones! I can't work iPhones! They're too complicated. Here take this back!"

Can't drive, can't use iPhones, sheesh...

schmidm77
Jul 24, 2012, 10:09 AM
We can thank Amazon for must of this current nonsense because of the infamous "one-click" patent.

"Oh gee, let's do a quick SQL query for customers' CC info, just like we and everybody already does for mailing addresses, and patent it as some new invention."

Zunjine
Jul 24, 2012, 10:11 AM
SCREW these sue happy loser companies. Let them compete on merit like Capitalism meant them to

Capitalism doesn't work without property rights.

Hakone
Jul 24, 2012, 10:11 AM
I guess this is what they meant by 'thermonuclear war':confused:

Tones2
Jul 24, 2012, 10:14 AM
Amazing. Just amazing. Such utter dribble and ahistorical nonsense.

Yes, I was thinking EXACTLY the same about YOUR post. :p

gnasher729
Jul 24, 2012, 10:14 AM
Wouldn't grandma be smart enough to know that when the box doesn't actually say the words "iPad" to keep going until the store clerk handed her an actually iPad? I work retail and when someone asks for a particular product they leave with that product. If they ask for suggestions, or seem interested in something else, it might be a different story but for the most part they tend to know what they are leaving my store with. Not disagreeing with you but it seems ridiculous to me that people can't tell the difference between the words iPad on a box, vs. Galaxt Tab, Asus Transformer, or the name of some lesser known tablet.

So you work retail. And if someone comes and asks for an iPad, and your store doesn't sell them, what does your boss say if you tell the prospective customer "we don't sell iPads, try at Apple" instead of showing them the Samsung tablets that are collecting dust?

The point isn't whether people can distinguish between the words. This is about design trademarks, and company names and company logos are _expressly_ not part of the design trademark. So a tablet that looks exactly like an iPad _except for a big sticker "this is not an Apple iPad"_ would be infringing on Apple's design trademark. This is about people who go by the looks of the item, and not by the name.


SCREW these sue happy loser companies. Let them compete on merit like Capitalism meant them to, not suing like pissy little lawyers

You mean "SCREW these copycat loser companies. Let them compete on merit like Capitalism meant them to, not copying other's hard work"

Zunjine
Jul 24, 2012, 10:17 AM
Yes, I was thinking EXACTLY the same about YOUR post. :p

Which one? Or are you just trolling?

Also - seeing as how I've made no ahistorical comments, I can only assume you don't know what ahistorical means.

EDIT: Actually, don't worry. I've just had a look at your post history and you clearly are just trolling.

Swordylove
Jul 24, 2012, 10:21 AM
I see. Because wanting to benefit from your own work is 'unreasonable'.

Let's put it another way, how would you feel if your boss sent your paycheck to me instead? After all, you surely wouldn't be so unreasonable as to expect YOU to benefit from your work, would you?

If they had invented the iPhone (or iPad) then THEY WOULD HAVE invented the iPhone (or iPad). LOL

I was using my PocketPC Treo and Jornada, and looking at an HP NotePad with a swivel mount when these devices debuted. That was where the major PC and Smartphone makers were heading.

Apple changed all that. So yes, they should own the rights to that, especially when they properly patented it.

I'm specifically pointing at the "tap to zoom" patent. iPhone and iPad were great innovations and Apple has every right to protect them from copycats.

KdParker
Jul 24, 2012, 10:21 AM
Why should tap to zoom be a standard?

Just because it's the best way to do something doesn't mean it should be given away for free. Something being popular, similarly, doesn't make it suddenly a defacto standard in terms of patents and why should it? That would create a perverse incentive to try to make sure your ideas aren't too good and don't get too popular.

How long is the patent on software innovations?

Zunjine
Jul 24, 2012, 10:24 AM
How long is the patent on software innovations?

I don't know. Seems to me that they patent length should vary depending on the item in question.

ristlin
Jul 24, 2012, 10:26 AM
I guess this is what they meant by 'thermonuclear war':confused:

More like scuffle in the back alley.

Zunjine
Jul 24, 2012, 10:26 AM
I'm specifically pointing at the "tap to zoom" patent. iPhone and iPad were great innovations and Apple has every right to protect them from copycats.

The iPhone and the iPad are the sum of the parts of small things like tap to zoom. Saying that someone should be able to protect the whole but not the parts doesn't make sense to me.

hamlin
Jul 24, 2012, 10:27 AM
Why would you guys want them to sue everyone that "copies" their products and make it better? That is a benefit to us. Apple is ruining the technology world with their patents. No one can innovate.

This website and your comments just prove that Apple is the best marketing company of all time. They can make you believe that buying out of date technology at a high price is a good thing.

Example:

Iphone 3gs $375 on apple site
galaxy nexus $350.

Don't even bother arguing that the 3gs is better because it isn't.

Tigger11
Jul 24, 2012, 10:31 AM
Figures pulled straight from the butt of an Apple lawyer.

It looks a bit like ours $24, has a bouncy effect $2.02. Your essential patent $0.005, Apple smacking of desperation $priceless!

Apple is basing the value of the essential patent based on the value of the part that uses the patent (less then $1), Samsung thinks the patent should be based on the total value of the device the part is put into (as does Motorola). They believe that you should pay more for a patent based on whether its in a 16 GB Ipad 2 ($399) vs a top of the line 64GB cellular new Ipad ($829), I disagree with that concept, so I'm ok with Apple fighting it.

Zunjine
Jul 24, 2012, 10:32 AM
[QUOTE=hamlin;15312360]Why would you guys want them to sue everyone that "copies" their products and make it better? That is a benefit to us. Apple is ruining the technology world with their patents. No one can innovate.
QUOTE]

Try to remember what phones were like before the iPhone and then come back and tell me you still think Apple's making technology worse.

ristlin
Jul 24, 2012, 10:33 AM
I guess this is what they meant by 'thermonuclear war':confused:

double post

ChrisTX
Jul 24, 2012, 10:37 AM
So you work retail. And if someone comes and asks for an iPad, and your store doesn't sell them, what does your boss say if you tell the prospective customer "we don't sell iPads, try at Apple" instead of showing them the Samsung tablets that are collecting dust?

The point isn't whether people can distinguish between the words. This is about design trademarks, and company names and company logos are _expressly_ not part of the design trademark. So a tablet that looks exactly like an iPad _except for a big sticker "this is not an Apple iPad"_ would be infringing on Apple's design trademark. This is about people who go by the looks of the item, and not by the name.

I'm not dishonest and I would hope others would follow suit as well, but if someone asked me for an iPad and all we sold were Samsung tabs, I would let them know that they weren't buying an iPad but of course but proceed to try ansd make the sale. That's what any good salesman would do. It's not being dishonest at all if you inform the consumer what product they are purchasing before they purchase it. :cool:

samcraig
Jul 24, 2012, 10:38 AM
So in short - Apple is more concerned with how something looks than the actual technology patents. Got it.

Prodo123
Jul 24, 2012, 10:40 AM
Give it a damn rest already with the patent trolling on both sides.

Leaping Tortois
Jul 24, 2012, 10:43 AM
I'm curious. I'm not sure what patents are actually involved, but does anyone actually think that someone would buy a galaxy smartphone for tap to zoom? I bought my Galaxy S2 for the SAMOLED+ screen, Widgets and the notification center (which I didn't know was in the upcoming iOS but we all know apple ripped it from google). I don't give a rat's a** if it has tap to zoom, or anything like that.

I think that for the $500mil in lost profits apple would have to prove that people bought the phones and tablets for the specific features that they're talking about. Hard to do. As for the other 2bil...

AppleFan1984
Jul 24, 2012, 10:43 AM
I can. Grandma wants a Christmas present for her granddaughter who wants an iPad. She saw on a website what they look like. She's never, ever heard of Apple. Apples are something that grows on trees to her. She goes to the store and says "I want an iPad". Salesman says "I've got just the right thing for you". And since Samsung is a well known name, it wouldn't occur to her that Samsung isn't actually the maker of iPads.

And then there are plenty of people who, for whatever reason, want to buy something that at least looks like an iPad.
Then Apple should sue resellers who direct iPad requests to competing products.

Do you know anyone who puts a "band-aid" on a cut, or when you want an answer they suggest you "google" it?

That brands become generic with success does not in itself mean that all other brands have no value.

And in Samsung's case, that's especially true, for the most ironic of reasons: with Apple having globally positioned Samsung as the company to beat, Samsung sales are skyrocketing.

Ryan John
Jul 24, 2012, 10:45 AM
Apple is basing the value of the essential patent based on the value of the part that uses the patent (less then $1), Samsung thinks the patent should be based on the total value of the device the part is put into (as does Motorola). They believe that you should pay more for a patent based on whether its in a 16 GB Ipad 2 ($399) vs a top of the line 64GB cellular new Ipad ($829), I disagree with that concept, so I'm ok with Apple fighting it.


OK, so why are Apple applying one rule for their grievances and a totally different rule when determining the cost of infringing on a competitors product. Justify to me how a bouncy graphic with purely visual effect, has a greater potential value than a 3G technology essential for your hardware to operate.

macsmurf
Jul 24, 2012, 10:47 AM
When you become an inventor, creator, or engineer you will grasp the concept of Intellectual Property and ownership.

And yet an overwhelming majority of software developers hate software patents. Why do you think that is?

samcraig
Jul 24, 2012, 10:47 AM
OK, so why are Apple applying one rule for their grievances and a totally different rule when determining the cost of infringing on a competitors product. Justify to me how a bouncy graphic with purely visual effect, has a greater potential value than a 3G technology essential for your hardware to operate.

Because Apple prides themselves on design. The tech is just a side note ;)

Rennir
Jul 24, 2012, 10:48 AM
So when Apple is forced to take off the LTE label on the new iPad, and when Apple gets sued because of Siri, it's the consumers damn fault for being absolute idiots and not researching enough about the product beforehand, making them entitled jerks. But if a consumer somehow mistakes a Galaxy tab for the new iPad it's Samsung's fault now? :p

Twixt
Jul 24, 2012, 10:50 AM
This is not cool AAPL...
Every giant has to fall and disappear one day, what you think could increase your life expectation might trigger a sooner end

Rogifan
Jul 24, 2012, 10:51 AM
I'm curious. I'm not sure what patents are actually involved, but does anyone actually think that someone would buy a galaxy smartphone for tap to zoom? I bought my Galaxy S2 for the SAMOLED+ screen, Widgets and the notification center (which I didn't know was in the upcoming iOS but we all know apple ripped it from google). I don't give a rat's a** if it has tap to zoom, or anything like that.

I think that for the $500mil in lost profits apple would have to prove that people bought the phones and tablets for the specific features that they're talking about. Hard to do. As for the other 2bil...

I'm guessing the average Joe is more familiar with tap or pinch to zoom than they are SAMOLED+ screen.

baypharm
Jul 24, 2012, 10:53 AM
Apple is being absolutely ridiculous Here.

Well it's a shame that Apple is not an American mfg company. It is only a design company located within the USA. Think of all the jobs we could have here....

seven2k7
Jul 24, 2012, 10:53 AM
Why would you guys want them to sue everyone that "copies" their products and make it better? That is a benefit to us. Apple is ruining the technology world with their patents. No one can innovate.

This website and your comments just prove that Apple is the best marketing company of all time. They can make you believe that buying out of date technology at a high price is a good thing.

Example:

Iphone 3gs $375 on apple site
galaxy nexus $350.

Don't even bother arguing that the 3gs is better because it isn't.

Spot on man!!! SPOT ON! People dont realize what apple is doing. Consumers are going to get screwed. Apple has become what they were against in the 80s. Just own it!! Apple doesnt equal freedom anymore. Apple = $$$$ at any cost.

hamlin
Jul 24, 2012, 10:55 AM
[QUOTE=hamlin;15312360]Why would you guys want them to sue everyone that "copies" their products and make it better? That is a benefit to us. Apple is ruining the technology world with their patents. No one can innovate.
QUOTE]

Try to remember what phones were like before the iPhone and then come back and tell me you still think Apple's making technology worse.

So because apple redesigned the phone, no one can innovate and make it better?

MonkeySee....
Jul 24, 2012, 11:00 AM
I'm curious. I'm not sure what patents are actually involved, but does anyone actually think that someone would buy a galaxy smartphone for tap to zoom? I bought my Galaxy S2 for the SAMOLED+ screen, Widgets and the notification center (which I didn't know was in the upcoming iOS but we all know apple ripped it from google). I don't give a rat's a** if it has tap to zoom, or anything like that.

I think that for the $500mil in lost profits apple would have to prove that people bought the phones and tablets for the specific features that they're talking about. Hard to do. As for the other 2bil...

You don't give a rats a** because you take it for granted as it its just part of the phone when, in fact, its part of the iPhone.

samcraig
Jul 24, 2012, 11:00 AM
You don't give a rats a** because you take it for granted as it its just part of the phone when, in fact, its part of the iPhone.

In cases like pinch to zoom - my opinion is - Apple can protect it's code on how to do it and I'm ok with it. I'm not ok with protecting the concept.

Mattie Num Nums
Jul 24, 2012, 11:02 AM
So when Apple is forced to take off the LTE label on the new iPad, and when Apple gets sued because of Siri, it's the consumers damn fault for being absolute idiots and not researching enough about the product beforehand, making them entitled jerks. But if a consumer somehow mistakes a Galaxy tab for the new iPad it's Samsung's fault now? :p

You're holding it wrong :D

MonkeySee....
Jul 24, 2012, 11:02 AM
In cases like pinch to zoom - my opinion is - Apple can protect it's code on how to do it and I'm ok with it. I'm not ok with protecting the concept.

Someone said in an earlier post that you can't protect the code. Not sure how true that is though.

chagla
Jul 24, 2012, 11:02 AM
Amazing. Just amazing. Such utter dribble and ahistorical nonsense.

care to back it up with facts? multitouch phone existed before iphones. maybe they werent' so cool. so how is the other posters comment rubbish?

Tones2
Jul 24, 2012, 11:05 AM
That is where you are absolutely wrong. If your Windows CE based phone truly ran laps around the original iPhone as you suggest. Then MS would still be developing Windows mobile. Let's not get crazy here, the first iPhone revolutionized the mobile industry, and changed things forever. I just think it's ludicris for Apple to put a ridiculously high number on things. However Samsung tends to do more copying than anyone else these days.

No. The iPhone just made smart phones enomously POPULAR because of the Apple mystic. There was NOTHING I couldn't do on my Windows CE (I think it was actually windows mobile 6.x) that the iPhone could do except for playing DRM protected music and MULTI-TOUCH, the latter which was significant but overall the iPhone brought nothing earth shattering to the smart phone markt. I did NOT buy the 1st iPhone because at the time I thought it was a dated phone, especially with no 3rd party apps nor any 3G nor a file system nor replaceable battery nor external storage, which was at the time about 2 years behind most other smartphones.

Of course, the iPhone STILL doesn't hve some of these things, and there are software things that I could do on my Windows mobile phone that you still can't do on an iPhone, like different keyboards and dialer skins and home screen tabs, widgets, etc. All of which I got back when I switched to the S3 / Android.

SvenSvenson
Jul 24, 2012, 11:07 AM
No one can innovate.

Exactly the opposite - Apple's rivals should go ahead and innovate: come up with a better way to zoom rather then 'tap to zoom' -there were zoom methods before, find a better one. ditto for 'slide to unlock', 'pinch', 'twist' etc etc.

Why is it up to Apple to rejuventate/reinvent the MP3 player, the smartphone, the tablet?

Tones2
Jul 24, 2012, 11:11 AM
Which one? Or are you just trolling?

Also - seeing as how I've made no ahistorical comments, I can only assume you don't know what ahistorical means.

EDIT: Actually, don't worry. I've just had a look at your post history and you clearly are just trolling.

Yeah, right. Over 1,000 posts of trolling and owning all the iPhone that existed after the first and every iPad that existed and an AppleTV. I just came here to troll. Jeez...:rolleyes:

sweetbrat
Jul 24, 2012, 11:12 AM
Well it's a shame that Apple is not an American mfg company. It is only a design company located within the USA. Think of all the jobs we could have here....

What does that have to do with a discussion about patents?

As for the whole patent issue, people can run around screaming that these patents and software patents in general shouldn't be allowed. But the fact is that they are. Whether or not it should have been, Apple was granted patents on these features. As such, they have to try to protect them. I can't really fault them for that. If the patents should be invalidated...that's a whole different discussion. But do you really expect Apple to just stop trying to protect the patents which it legally owns? That's not logical.

gotluck
Jul 24, 2012, 11:12 AM
i hope apple is putting this much effort into innovating their new lineup.

otherwise :(
Apple is the new Microsoft.

samcraig
Jul 24, 2012, 11:13 AM
Exactly the opposite - Apple's rivals should go ahead and innovate: come up with a better way to zoom rather then 'tap to zoom' -there were zoom methods before, find a better one. ditto for 'slide to unlock', 'pinch', 'twist' etc etc.

Why is it up to Apple to rejuventate/reinvent the MP3 player, the smartphone, the tablet?

come up with a better way to drive a car without using round tires.

I digress. I'm more against patent hoarding then I am against patents themselves. In other words - Apple should be negotiating the use of their patents. Not preventing people from using them.

But that's there business model, not mine. And up to date it has been working for them. Not so sure it's the way for the future though.

1=1?
Jul 24, 2012, 11:19 AM
Seriously take the millions and millions of dollars you're putting towards legal fees going back and forth to help mitigate profit losses from moving the jobs back to the US.

Kwill
Jul 24, 2012, 11:19 AM
IF Apple receives the judgment, it will likely spend much more (http://www.slashgear.com/apple-to-spend-11bn-on-samsung-parts-in-2012-claims-exec-13218118/) on Samsung components in future Apple products.

ThisIsNotMe
Jul 24, 2012, 11:19 AM
No the first iPhone wasn't revolutionary. It didn't even runs 3rd party apps, for heaven's sake. The only thing different was multi-touch. I had a touch based Windows CE based phone at the time that ran circles around it. It's just that Apple made smartphones POPULAR because of the core fanatical fanbase.

They need to stop these ridiculous lawsuits.

Laughable.
I had the highest end Windows phone and loved it a lot before the iPhone was release but to say that it was anywhere near the level of the iPhone is laughable.

gnasher729
Jul 24, 2012, 11:21 AM
Then Apple should sue resellers who direct iPad requests to competing products.

Do you know anyone who puts a "band-aid" on a cut, or when you want an answer they suggest you "google" it?

That brands become generic with success does not in itself mean that all other brands have no value.

You didn't read my previous post, right? This has nothing at all to do with brands. Brands are completely irrelevant to design patents. Branding is _expressly excluded_ from design patents. This is about making products that _look_ similar enough to confuse the customer, and when a court has to compare the products for similarity, the branding is excluded from the comparison.

And what grounds would Apple have to sue a reseller? Every reseller is expected to sell what they have on sale. Manufacturers have the duty to respect the laws and not produce products that can be confused, in the presence of design patents.


IF Apple receives the judgment, it will likely spend much more (http://www.slashgear.com/apple-to-spend-11bn-on-samsung-parts-in-2012-claims-exec-13218118/) on Samsung components in future Apple products.

Samsung has competitors, who will gladly accept money from Apple. Apple also has the cash to create manufacturing capacity very, very quickly. Losing Apple as a customer would be fatal for Samsung.

Technarchy
Jul 24, 2012, 11:21 AM
How to not have problems with Apple...

Don't steal from Apple.

Read my signature...pretty clear if you ask me...

intelgrande
Jul 24, 2012, 11:22 AM
For everyone saying that that iPhone was revolutionary, blah, blah... I ask you: So what? Why do you guys have this belief that just because you come up with an idea first, you should have exclusive rights to that idea? There's a difference between patenting an invention that produces a result, and patenting the result itself. Apple is complaining about the latter.

I understand that Apple is working within the confines of existing law, but I also strongly disagree with the "inventions" Apple has been patenting.

I always compare it to something like a car engine. I can understand a patent covering the inner workings that aren't so obvious, even when you have the ability to examine the engine up close and personal. But Apple is trying to patent the idea of putting an engine in a car.

If you can look at something and figure out almost instantly how it works, I don't see how that is patentable. Great design? Probably. Should you be able to get a piece of paper that gives you exclusive rights to that design? No.

gotluck
Jul 24, 2012, 11:24 AM
IF Apple receives the judgment, it will likely spend much more (http://www.slashgear.com/apple-to-spend-11bn-on-samsung-parts-in-2012-claims-exec-13218118/) on Samsung components in future Apple products.

Yes, this is likely true. They say you shouldn't poop where you eat.

Jason Garza
Jul 24, 2012, 11:25 AM
Edited: My question was already answered.

AustinIllini
Jul 24, 2012, 11:26 AM
No it is not ridiculous Chris.

If you can patent Beer on a Stick...
http://invention-protection.com/pdf_patents/4350712.pdf

or a Slot Machine-Shaped Toaster...
http://invention-protection.com/pdf_patents/patd545112.pdf...

...why should it be ridiculous for Apple to patent their inventions?
If they have been awarded a patent, they are fully within their rights to fight for damages if someone wants to take a shortcut and profit from illegally copying their work.
When the patent runs out anyone can copy it.
But until then the law is the law, not just when it's convenient for you.

Because if the world of patent law were entirely like the world of technological patent law a company would be able to patent the toaster. Therefore the Slot-Machine Shaped Toaster would be illegal.

I own Apple products, but I am so angry with this.

JGowan
Jul 24, 2012, 11:27 AM
Just like Amazon owns clicking to purchase? Deal with it.Apple plays fair, pure and simple. If they don't own it, they buy it or license it.

Cupertino's 5 Best Acquisitions (Siri, Emagic, Next, Fingerworks, Nothing Real) (http://www.maclife.com/article/features/apple_buys_everything_cupertinos_5_best_acquisitions)

Coverflow (http://www.steelskies.com/coverflow/)

Apple Licenses Amazon.com 1-Click Patent and Trademark (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2000/09/18Apple-Licenses-Amazon-com-1-Click-Patent-and-Trademark.html)

AustinIllini
Jul 24, 2012, 11:28 AM
Yes, this is likely true. They say you shouldn't poop where you eat.

Especially when you're under pressure to buy parts made in America, seeing as Samsung makes the A5X right down the street.

Tones2
Jul 24, 2012, 11:28 AM
Laughable.
I had the highest end Windows phone and loved it a lot before the iPhone was release but to say that it was anywhere near the level of the iPhone is laughable.

In what SPECIFIC WAY was the iPhone better than a Windows mobile phone at the time the FIRST iPhone was introduced, other than multi-touch? I listed in another post in this thread all the things that my Windows mobile phone could do that the iPhone could not, so I won't go through it here again.

samcraig
Jul 24, 2012, 11:30 AM
How to not have problems with Apple...

Don't steal from Apple.

Read my signature...pretty clear if you ask me...

Yeah... just curious - how many of those 200 were accepted. Just asking if you know. Because there's a difference between filing and actually having them.

gotluck
Jul 24, 2012, 11:31 AM
-

samcraig
Jul 24, 2012, 11:32 AM
Apple plays fair, pure and simple. If they don't own it, they buy it or license it.

Cupertino's 5 Best Acquisitions (Siri, Emagic, Next, Fingerworks, Nothing Real) (http://www.maclife.com/article/features/apple_buys_everything_cupertinos_5_best_acquisitions)

Coverflow (http://www.steelskies.com/coverflow/)

Apple Licenses Amazon.com 1-Click Patent and Trademark (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2000/09/18Apple-Licenses-Amazon-com-1-Click-Patent-and-Trademark.html)

Your not serious, right? They play fair? They always buy or license it?

Read something besides the Apple websites and forums please.

Technarchy
Jul 24, 2012, 11:33 AM
Yes, this is likely true. They say you shouldn't poop where you eat.

If Samsung were to try and inflate part costs on Apple, it would be a huge gift to their competitors.

We saw what happened to Google Maps when Google raised access costs...

gotluck
Jul 24, 2012, 11:35 AM
If Samsung were to try and inflate part costs on Apple, it would be a huge gift to their competitors.

We saw what happened to Google Maps when Google raised access costs...

Well I wouldn't go bragging about Apple's maps app yet... At this point I'd rather have the old Google Maps app.

Regardless of Samsung's competitors, Apple needs Samsung. Hell, Apple's at thermonuclear war with Google and it took them this long to get rid of Google Maps, I wouldn't count on a huge change in the supply chain.

ChrisTX
Jul 24, 2012, 11:42 AM
No. The iPhone just made smart phones enomously POPULAR because of the Apple mystic. There was NOTHING I couldn't do on my Windows CE (I think it was actually windows mobile 6.x) that the iPhone could do except for playing DRM protected music and MULTI-TOUCH, the latter which was significant but overall the iPhone brought nothing earth shattering to the smart phone markt. I did NOT buy the 1st iPhone because at the time I thought it was a dated phone, especially with no 3rd party apps nor any 3G nor a file system nor replaceable battery nor external storage, which was at the time about 2 years behind most other smartphones.

Of course, the iPhone STILL doesn't hve some of these things, and there are software things that I could do on my Windows mobile phone that you still can't do on an iPhone, like different keyboards and dialer skins and home screen tabs, widgets, etc. All of which I got back when I switched to the S3 / Android.
Some of those things you mention here are really non essential. You shouldn't have to download a third party keyboard to get core functionality to work the way it was originally intended.

Steve Jobs said it best..."Smartphones now, aren't so smart, and they're not so easy to use." Apple took an industry in which no one but business people had a smartphone, and put a smartphone into the hands of MILLIONS of people that never would have used one otherwise. Apple revolutionized the way we look at mobile today, and forever. If Apples offerings with the iPhone weren't so significant, then Google, and Microsoft would be doing something radically different right now, and they're not. The Blackberries, Palms, Nokias, etc...of yore should have had Apple patented core functionality if it was so insignificant but they like many major corporations got lazy, and allowed for Apple to come in and take over. :cool:

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 24, 2012, 11:48 AM
You mean "SCREW these copycat loser companies. Let them compete on merit like Capitalism meant them to, not copying other's hard work"

By your reasoning, we should only have 1 company making cars, 1 company making phones, 1 company making computers, 1 company making refrigerators, etc., etc. since they ALL are copy-cat devices. Samsung doesn't use iOS or ANY Apple code. Apple didn't invent the tablet computer. They sure as heck didn't invent the Cell phone (and have been sued for various infringements thereof). The idea is ludicrous when taken to extremes. Patents are for SPECIFIC processes, formulas and the like that are not obvious. Being able to patent the idea of using your finger to press or swipe things is downright stupid but that doesn't stop Apple from trying to sue everyone.

Hattig
Jul 24, 2012, 11:48 AM
The overscroll-bounce visual effect Apple "patent" is supposedly worth $2.02 per unit, but "essential 3G patents" should be $0.005 per unit.

This. Twenty lines of code that was patented is somehow worth 220x more than the massive amount of time and effort that went into each component of the 3G specification.

It strikes me that Samsung is less than impressed with Apple's demands, hence why they've been unreasonable in return with the 3G patents.

Is the overscroll bump effect nice? Yes. Is it essential? No. In many ways the fact that a simple effect can be patented like this shows all that is wrong with the software patent system.

Kwill
Jul 24, 2012, 11:49 AM
If you can look at something and figure out almost instantly how it works, I don't see how that is patentable. Great design? Probably. Should you be able to get a piece of paper that gives you exclusive rights to that design? No.

What seems obvious now was not the norm before the iPhone. There was no tap to zoom or bouncy overscroll. Remember the Palm Treo (http://www.cell2get.com/palm-treo-650-smartphone-cell-phone-gsm-unlocked-p-1.html#googlebase)? BTW, you can still purchase one.

macMD
Jul 24, 2012, 11:49 AM
Apple has been smoking too much crack for far too long. They abuse FRAND patents and refuse to pay the patent holder and then force them to sue them. Allowing the courts to rule what is fair and reasonable.

Traded dress, really are being so confused by a Samsung Android tablet that they are NOT buying an iPad instead. Simply put they are buying based on price and their desire to purchase Android over iOS.

I had features in my PPC Phone in 2000 - 2003 window that was all touch screen with touch screen keyboards while Apple claims that was their key feature.

Apple has also clearly RIPPED OFF smaller companies innovations and patents and forced those entities with far, far smaller bank accounts to sue them. Just look at the iPod lawsuit over the UI and see that the company was awarded $6million (or so) for patent abuse. Apple made a crap load of money on the iPod and the UI was key.

The best and most fair way to deal with Apple vs (Insert Company Here) Samsung, etc. is to send them to mediation instead of tying up the courts for years.

lilo777
Jul 24, 2012, 11:53 AM
If Samsung were to try and inflate part costs on Apple, it would be a huge gift to their competitors.

We saw what happened to Google Maps when Google raised access costs...

What exactly happened to Google maps? They got better? And now that CoOrning and Samsung announced that they will create a joint venture to produce Gorilla Glass, does it mean that Apple will be buying yet another critical component from Samsung?

Tones2
Jul 24, 2012, 12:10 PM
Some of those things you mention here are really non essential. You shouldn't have to download a third party keyboard to get core functionality to work the way it was originally intended.

Steve Jobs said it best..."Smartphones now, aren't so smart, and they're not so easy to use." Apple took an industry in which no one but business people had a smartphone, and put a smartphone into the hands of MILLIONS of people that never would have used one otherwise. Apple revolutionized the way we look at mobile today, and forever. If Apples offerings with the iPhone weren't so significant, then Google, and Microsoft would be doing something radically different right now, and they're not. The Blackberries, Palms, Nokias, etc...of yore should have had Apple patented core functionality if it was so insignificant but they like many major corporations got lazy, and allowed for Apple to come in and take over. :cool:

Boy oh boy...

First off, you CAN download different keyboards for different type of functionality if the core keyboard doesn't do something or you simply want a different SKIN on it. Nothing wrong with the core keyboard. For instance (an Android example), you can get a 'swipe" type keyboard it you like that style. Apple gives you no choice. You are stuck.

As for the rest of your Apple PR stuff - phew. Yes, it's PR stuff. :D Yes, they DID increase the POPULARITY of smart phones without a doubt, because of the fanbase and their superior marketing skills, not so much phone technology. And with popularity comes attention. And with attention comes a whole lot of 3rd party developers. It's the 3rd party app developers that REALLY revolutionized the industry.

Swordylove
Jul 24, 2012, 12:11 PM
The iPhone and the iPad are the sum of the parts of small things like tap to zoom. Saying that someone should be able to protect the whole but not the parts doesn't make sense to me.

"Tap to zoom" is a patent by itself, as stated in the article.

Protecting "Slide to unlock" seems justifiable enough to me. But "tap to zoom"? That's like patenting a key bind. Of course you're going to tap it; it's a touchscreen! Duh!

Also, just because they patented it doesn't make it THIER work (talking common sense here, screw the flawed manmade laws). If someone other people have implemented it first, but Apple's the one who patent it, who's stealing whose work here (if you call that a 'work')? :rolleyes:

Anyone would've implemented it without knowing that kind of stuff has already been patented, because it's ridiculous to have such obvious gesture patented.

Technarchy
Jul 24, 2012, 12:11 PM
What exactly happened to Google maps?

It will no longer be the default mapping application in iOS devices in a few weeks.

You think this is a good thing considering Google makes more off iOS than any other mobile OS?

djphat2000
Jul 24, 2012, 12:15 PM
No. The iPhone just made smart phones enomously POPULAR because of the Apple mystic. There was NOTHING I couldn't do on my Windows CE (I think it was actually windows mobile 6.x) that the iPhone could do except for playing DRM protected music and MULTI-TOUCH, the latter which was significant but overall the iPhone brought nothing earth shattering to the smart phone markt. I did NOT buy the 1st iPhone because at the time I thought it was a dated phone, especially with no 3rd party apps nor any 3G nor a file system nor replaceable battery nor external storage, which was at the time about 2 years behind most other smartphones.

Of course, the iPhone STILL doesn't hve some of these things, and there are software things that I could do on my Windows mobile phone that you still can't do on an iPhone, like different keyboards and dialer skins and home screen tabs, widgets, etc. All of which I got back when I switched to the S3 / Android.

Did you hold on to that Windows CE phone that long? That's years man. :eek:
I had a Windows CE phone (Samsung BlackJack). No touch screen or anything fancy. I just didn't like Black Berry's, and wanted to have a better phone to text with. IE on the phone wasn't great at all, but it worked I suppose. Accessing files was useful at times, but in general not that big of a deal. I actually had a harder time getting Active Sync to work on that phone then my 3G iPhone. But, these were years apart.

In every way, the iPhone 3G that replaced that BlackJack was WAY better. YMMV here, and I am sure you had a different phone then I did. But, I doubt very many had the phone you were using compared to the iPhone, or any other BB or WinCE or Treo or HP, blah blah blah phone. If it was really that great, it would have become what the iPhone or Droid is today. Just way sooner.

lilo777
Jul 24, 2012, 12:15 PM
It will no longer be the default mapping application in iOS devices in a few weeks.

You think this is a good thing considering Google makes more off iOS than any other mobile OS?

A couple of more "improvements" like this and iOS will become totally useless.

Reason077
Jul 24, 2012, 12:16 PM
Apple is being absolutely ridiculous Here.

Ridiculous? I don't think so. Things like bouncing scrollbars didn't exist in mobile devices before the iPhone. Yet the smartphones of the time got by just fine without them. Google & Samsung could have done the R&D to come up with their own scrolling solution - yet they chose to copy Apple's.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean Samsung and others should be prevented from creating smartphones that can compete with the iPhone. Competition is healthy and good for everyone, including Apple customers. A balance needs to be found between ensuring a competitive market and protecting/encouraging innovation.

jmgregory1
Jul 24, 2012, 12:16 PM
Why would you guys want them to sue everyone that "copies" their products and make it better? That is a benefit to us. Apple is ruining the technology world with their patents. No one can innovate.

This website and your comments just prove that Apple is the best marketing company of all time. They can make you believe that buying out of date technology at a high price is a good thing.

Example:

Iphone 3gs $375 on apple site
galaxy nexus $350.

Don't even bother arguing that the 3gs is better because it isn't.

What? Apple is ruining the technology world with their patents, huh? No one can innovate?

If the point you're trying to make is that Apple is keeping others from copying their patented (designs, technology, etc) and that is what you consider to be innovation, then wow, you have a strange definition of innovation.

This issue has nothing to do with Apple's marketing prowess. You can replace any business name in your argument and it still makes zero sense. If company "A" creates and patents a product, then they should be able to have the support of the legal system when company "B" copies/pilfers/steals/borrows their patented product.

Innovation should work like this - company "A" creates and patents a product and company "B" takes the concept of company "A" product, improves upon it - makes it better and patents their product.

Innovation is the introduction of something new - a new method, idea or device (for example). How is not being able to copy someone else's idea stifling innovation?

tshrimp
Jul 24, 2012, 12:16 PM
I don't know who is right or wrong here. But every time I see Apples name these days it is associated with a legal action. Creative Labs did this back in the day, and was successful in many cases and not in others, but people started to rebel against them after all this, and I am afraid this will happen with Apple. I know I like my Apple stuff, but even myself is starting to resent them.

Kyle4
Jul 24, 2012, 12:17 PM
Apple has been smoking too much crack for far too long. They abuse FRAND patents and refuse to pay the patent holder and then force them to sue them. Allowing the courts to rule what is fair and reasonable.

Traded dress, really are being so confused by a Samsung Android tablet that they are NOT buying an iPad instead. Simply put they are buying based on price and their desire to purchase Android over iOS.

I had features in my PPC Phone in 2000 - 2003 window that was all touch screen with touch screen keyboards while Apple claims that was their key feature.

Apple has also clearly RIPPED OFF smaller companies innovations and patents and forced those entities with far, far smaller bank accounts to sue them. Just look at the iPod lawsuit over the UI and see that the company was awarded $6million (or so) for patent abuse. Apple made a crap load of money on the iPod and the UI was key.

The best and most fair way to deal with Apple vs (Insert Company Here) Samsung, etc. is to send them to mediation instead of tying up the courts for years.

Thank you for this. I know I shouldn't be expecting anything less then raving fanboys on a site called Macrumors but the cult like defending of Apple is a huge contrast to the rationality applied by every other site discussing this case. Apple is being ridiculous here because they want to be a monopoly. The patent system is broken.

Reason077
Jul 24, 2012, 12:22 PM
It will no longer be the default mapping application in iOS devices in a few weeks.

You think this is a good thing considering Google makes more off iOS than any other mobile OS?

It's bad. In many aspects, Apple's Maps are inferior compared to Google's. Things like turn by turn and 3D buildings are cool, but when it comes to the basics, Google's Maps are better - both in the quality of the cartography and the accuracy and completeness of the source data.

Apple trying to catch up with Google in Maps is a bit like Google trying to catch up with Apple in mobile OS's ;)

Rennir
Jul 24, 2012, 12:23 PM
Some of those things you mention here are really non essential. You shouldn't have to download a third party keyboard to get core functionality to work the way it was originally intended.



Tell that to the iOS keyboard.

Kevin Winsness
Jul 24, 2012, 12:27 PM
Just pay us our money already Samsung!!!! You have been ripping off our IP for years now!!

Rodimus Prime
Jul 24, 2012, 12:27 PM
I really hope this mess for Apple results in the same smack down Oracel got which is $0 and having to pay Samsung legal fees.

A lot of thoses are crapents and should never of been granted in the first place.

jmgregory1
Jul 24, 2012, 12:28 PM
"Tap to zoom" is a patent by itself, as stated in the article.

Protecting "Slide to unlock" seems justifiable enough to me. But "tap to zoom"? That's like patenting a key bind. Of course you're going to tap it; it's a touchscreen! Duh!

Also, just because they patented it doesn't make it THIER work (talking common sense here, screw the flawed manmade laws). If someone other people have implemented it first, but Apple's the one who patent it, who's stealing whose work here (if you call that a 'work')? :rolleyes:

Anyone would've implemented it without knowing that kind of stuff has already been patented, because it's ridiculous to have such obvious gesture patented.

Apple, or Samsung or Moto or RIM - they all patented things that were not obvious at the time they patented them. Just because something today seems obvious because it's become the popular or de-facto solution doesn't mean that the product/tech shouldn't have been patented at a point where it wasn't the obvious solution. I can't say I would have ever thought of tapping to zoom on my first gen iPaq or my Treo phone. In both cases - things like tap to zoom or slide to unlock were anything but obvious. And frankly, suggesting anything obvious today is the way it always should have been is crazy thinking. You seem to be living in a world where the past is what, 3 years ago, maybe 5 at the longest?

If prior art exists and the patent office finds it, then the patent isn't given. If the patent office doesn't find something that clearly is prior art, then it's up to someone else to point that out and attempt to have the patent pulled.

Reason077
Jul 24, 2012, 12:31 PM
Just pay us our money already Samsung!!!! You have been ripping off our IP for years now!!

Tim? Is that you?

LordVic
Jul 24, 2012, 12:39 PM
Heres something that strikes me odd. And why Apple is receiving a lot of negativity over the lawsuits.

Apple violates Samsung Patent. Samsung agrees to go into licencing agreement. Apple continues selling product. Both Companies make millions.

Samsung violates (allegedly, still in most courts) Apple Patents. Apple refuses to licence any patents. Asks for injunctions and all out bans on All samsung products and claims Samsung is directly responsible for billions in lost sales, then accuses samsung of charging them too much for use of Samsungs Patents.


:eek:

Apple wonders why this "thermonuclear war" is costing them billions? Maybe it's their own damn fault. Try entering negotiations for licencing and you'd be amazed how much faster innovation happens when you're not busy spending millions on lawsuits and cumbersome ways of developing new tech's without stepping on eachothers patents.

KnightWRX
Jul 24, 2012, 12:40 PM
Wrong. Take an example the idea of using a metal bit to drill a hole in a piece of wood.

Hum, I'm wrong saying code is copyrighted, and you prove it using an example of a physical product. Sorry, your analogy doesn't apply. Software patents are not like patents for physical goods, and software is protected by copyright, which doesn't cover "metal bits to drill a hole in a piece of wood".

Copyright covers code/implementation in software.

samcraig
Jul 24, 2012, 12:42 PM
The ugly truth is that not even Steve Jobs himself can say with ANY certainty what the mobile phone market would look like now without Apple. It's all conjecture and a reality that can never take place or be proven/dis proven.

Unless time travel becomes possible.

And Steve was notorious for considering everyone but him "lazy." When he uses the word - it becomes meaningless.



Steve Jobs said it best..."Smartphones now, aren't so smart, and they're not so easy to use." Apple took an industry in which no one but business people had a smartphone, and put a smartphone into the hands of MILLIONS of people that never would have used one otherwise. Apple revolutionized the way we look at mobile today, and forever. If Apples offerings with the iPhone weren't so significant, then Google, and Microsoft would be doing something radically different right now, and they're not. The Blackberries, Palms, Nokias, etc...of yore should have had Apple patented core functionality if it was so insignificant but they like many major corporations got lazy, and allowed for Apple to come in and take over. :cool:

Renzatic
Jul 24, 2012, 12:43 PM
2.5 billion, huh? Looks like Apple has moved into the settlement phase of their ongoing patent crusade.

pacalis
Jul 24, 2012, 12:52 PM
So if YOU came up with a brilliant but simple idea, that no-one else had thought of, abd used it to create a device or gadget that could be worth millions, you wouldn't object if someone took that idea, implemented it in a different way and started to compete?

In all likelihood the actual person that invented the technology in these patents got a couple thousand bucks and a plaque. So let's not get too carried away about the morality of a companies objections.

TwinMonkeys
Jul 24, 2012, 12:52 PM
As a fan of high quality products, I understand the intrinsic desire to defend Apple at almost every turn, but I disagree with why people are defending this back and forth waste of the legal system here.

Hypothetically, Apple could invite Samsung to completely clone the design, look, feel, software, etc of an iPhone and Samsung would still not be able to perfectly duplicate the quality and Apple's implementation would still be noticeably superior.

Apple does not need a government enforced monopoly to be the market leader. This is bad for the software industry and a waste of resources.

I understand the defensive use of IP, but I am against these agressive actions.

pacalis
Jul 24, 2012, 12:54 PM
there you explained it to yourself - SEP patents should be granted on Fair Reasonable and Non-discriminatory bases. Apple's patent isn't SEP so they can charge as much as they want. I know how it sounds but that's how it is.

I don't understand why there is any debate about the SEP patents - surely these are licensed already under standard rates.

Is this Apple suit just a tactic to reduce SEP license costs?

String
Jul 24, 2012, 12:56 PM
Well this is what a lot of Android users think of their platform:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2012/jul/23/dead-trigger-android-free-piracy
Copying isn't limited to Samsung it seems.

jmgregory1
Jul 24, 2012, 12:56 PM
Heres something that strikes me odd. And why Apple is receiving a lot of negativity over the lawsuits.

Apple violates Samsung Patent. Samsung agrees to go into licencing agreement. Apple continues selling product. Both Companies make millions.

Samsung violates (allegedly, still in most courts) Apple Patents. Apple refuses to licence any patents. Asks for injunctions and all out bans on All samsung products and claims Samsung is directly responsible for billions in lost sales, then accuses samsung of charging them too much for use of Samsungs Patents.


:eek:

Apple wonders why this "thermonuclear war" is costing them billions? Maybe it's their own damn fault. Try entering negotiations for licencing and you'd be amazed how much faster innovation happens when you're not busy spending millions on lawsuits and cumbersome ways of developing new tech's without stepping on eachothers patents.

I think, but could be wrong here, that at least one issue Apple has with Samsung, in relation to both their wanting Samsung to stop (allegedly) copying them and their not signing some FRAND agreement for use of Samsung product/technology is due to the fact that Apple is a customer of Samsung.

They're buying products from Samsung (billions worth), which one would think would have both a hard cost for the products in question and a soft cost for the rights to use said product or technology (IP) owned by Samsung. And because they were (and probably still are) buying lots of things from Samsung, that it's very likely that Samsung has seen future Apple products (iPhone/iPad) that may just have made their way to the other side of the fence (from Samsung as supplier to Samsung as competitor). Common sense tells me it's very likely that Samsung has used what it learned from Apple in a way that Apple doesn't benefit from. Which is not the same as Apple using products/technology that it purchased from Samsung, which Apple paid for. If Apple has in fact stolen/copied technology from Samsung, or anyone for that matter, I'm all for Apple having to pay up.

pacalis
Jul 24, 2012, 12:57 PM
Hypothetically, Apple could invite Samsung to completely clone the design, look, feel, software, etc of an iPhone and Samsung would still not be able to perfectly duplicate the quality and Apple's implementation would still be noticeably superior.


Given that Apple doesn't actually manufacture the machines, a blatant Samsung copy, with the same suppliers and manufacturers would be EXACTLY the same as Apple's implementation.

hkenneth
Jul 24, 2012, 01:01 PM
Yeah - because wanting people to not rip off your designs is pathetic. Put yourself in the shoes of the risk taking companies who spend millions on R&D to find the right solution and then watch as others copy them - how would you react?

You would have to invent harder I guess... instead of wasting money and time in patent war.

yakapo
Jul 24, 2012, 01:04 PM
Why innovate when you can litigate?

-Apple's new company policy

hkenneth
Jul 24, 2012, 01:05 PM
In all likelihood the actual person that invented the technology in these patents got a couple thousand bucks and a plaque. So let's not get too carried away about the morality of a companies objections.

I cannot agree more.

KanosWRX
Jul 24, 2012, 01:05 PM
I have zero respect for Samsung.

Hit them hard, Apple.

I have zero respect for Apple and their insane patents. Keep up the good fight Samsung :)

Oletros
Jul 24, 2012, 01:05 PM
there you explained it to yourself - SEP patents should be granted on Fair Reasonable and Non-discriminatory bases. Apple's patent isn't SEP so they can charge as much as they want. I know how it sounds but that's how it is.

And $0.005 per unit is a Fair Reasonable and Non discriminatory price?

Sensation
Jul 24, 2012, 01:07 PM
tap to zoom is a patent?

My old Windows Phone 5 phone let you tap on things to zoom in :confused:

pacalis
Jul 24, 2012, 01:07 PM
Apple is basing the value of the essential patent based on the value of the part that uses the patent (less then $1), Samsung thinks the patent should be based on the total value of the device the part is put into (as does Motorola). They believe that you should pay more for a patent based on whether its in a 16 GB Ipad 2 ($399) vs a top of the line 64GB cellular new Ipad ($829), I disagree with that concept, so I'm ok with Apple fighting it.

With the Apple patents there are no parts, only code.

So, using your logic, reasonable royalty for Apple patents should be $0.00.

hkenneth
Jul 24, 2012, 01:08 PM
I am considering to patent "using finger to tap cellphone" so that everyone will be screwed. :D

gotluck
Jul 24, 2012, 01:12 PM
Well this is what a lot of Android users think of their platform:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2012/jul/23/dead-trigger-android-free-piracy
Copying isn't limited to Samsung it seems.

Would you like me to show you the way to the thriving iOS piracy community?

Rhetorical question btw , but it's there.

Whichever platform attracts the most tech savvy users will likely have more piracy.

samcraig
Jul 24, 2012, 01:14 PM
Well this is what a lot of Android users think of their platform:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2012/jul/23/dead-trigger-android-free-piracy
Copying isn't limited to Samsung it seems.

Nor is it limited to Android. Go see what a problem pirating is for any platform. Yes. Even iOS. Shocker!

Would you like me to show you the way to the thriving iOS piracy community?

Rhetorical question btw , but it's there.

This

pacalis
Jul 24, 2012, 01:21 PM
I am considering to patent "using finger to tap cellphone" so that everyone will be screwed. :D

You'll be infringing my "finger to tap device" claim.

I've also got another 7 years left on "a process by which a thumb is used to grasp, move or otherwise manipulate object"

kdarling
Jul 24, 2012, 01:23 PM
My old Windows Phone 5 phone let you tap on things to zoom in :confused:

Yes, there was at least one document/web browser (Picsel ?) that allowed tap-to-zoom back then, and probably others. That's not what Apple patented.

At first glance, it looks like Apple got a patent on the (obvious) next step: tapping a second area after already zooming in on the first area, and recentering on that second area.

Who even thinks of trying to patent stuff like this? It's going to lead to a few major companies spending all their spare time thinking up patent applications for offensive and defensive purposes, while users lose out due to lack of available common gestures.

Worse, this war started by Apple has enormous potential to backfire and really cause trouble. As I mentioned previously, a major company other than Apple has an application in for fingertip scrolling. Imagine if they get that patent and no one, including Apple, can continue to use flick scrolling. We could all be back to trackballs and cursor keys or large scrollbars.

Software patents either need to be gotten rid of (as other countries did), or restricted to a year or two at most.

samcraig
Jul 24, 2012, 01:28 PM
So you're saying this will lead to fragementation within the marketplace? :D

Yes, there was at least one document/web browser (Picsel ?) that allowed tap-to-zoom back then, and probably others. That's not what Apple patented.

At first glance, it looks like Apple got a patent on the (obvious) next step: tapping a second area after already zooming in on the first area, and recentering on that second area.

Who even thinks of trying to patent stuff like this? It's going to lead to a few major companies spending all their spare time thinking up patent applications for offensive and defensive purposes, while users lose out due to lack of available common gestures.

GoodWatch
Jul 24, 2012, 01:33 PM
See, you say that -- but look back 5 years to the introduction of the iPhone, and everything was utterly revolutionary. Steve mentioned that they patented the Hell out of it, and that they intend to protect their intellectual property. The patents mentioned in this lawsuit are just some of those.

As much as I hate these constant patent battles, I'm with Apple on this one.

As the patent system goes, Apple will protect its property. But I suspect there's something else behind this. Samsung is (are) one of the few real competitors and they just have to die. If the damages are rewarded could Samsung be driven into bankruptcy? If they are, their excellent TV sets will no longer be available. Is this what we all want? I for one don't.

I have just been awarded a patent that controls the intake of a certain gas mixture into the human body through the contraction and expansion of a set of muscles. It's called breathing and I will become rich beyond imagination! :)

jmgregory1
Jul 24, 2012, 01:34 PM
The ugly truth is that not even Steve Jobs himself can say with ANY certainty what the mobile phone market would look like now without Apple. It's all conjecture and a reality that can never take place or be proven/dis proven.

Unless time travel becomes possible.

And Steve was notorious for considering everyone but him "lazy." When he uses the word - it becomes meaningless.

I agree - without Apple getting into the phone market, we just can't say where things would have gone.

I remember getting the first color screen iPaq 3630 back in 2000 - a full 12 years ago. It could connect to the web and get emails if I used my cell phone as a modem while traveling - or connected to my laptop while my laptop was connected to a phone line. I had some presentation files on it, excel costing spreadsheets and wrote notes and emails on it while traveling around the country. It was definitely a mobile vision of what Windows could or should be - really just a duplication of your desktop on a small screen. The IE app sucked as it didn't re-draw pages well - although back then most websites sucked too.

After I retired the iPaq, I moved to a treo that did many of the same things that the iPaq did, but on a smaller screen with a dedicated keyboard. No need to carry my sanyo phone around anymore. I could do the same sorts of things, like keep a pricing sheet file on it for reference and of course send and receive emails. Using the web browser sucked - with the smaller screen and poorly redrawn "mobile" version of most sites. It really was just a way of keeping in contact with people via email and text.

I remember getting an email from Apple asking me if I would participate in a questionnaire about my cell phone - I think that was back in 2006. I probably still have it archived, but it was before they got into the smartphone business and I remember thinking that it was a great thing for them to consider moving into at the time. I had an iPod that I carried around (along with the treo and either a Compaq, Dell and HP laptop) for listening to music with. I've completely screwed both of my shoulders from years of carrying more than 10 lbs worth of electronics with me (along with the paper I was selling). Anything that could reduce the weight of electronics was something I was happy to be part of.

So Apple didn't create the cell phone, they didn't create mobile email or mobile web or tape/cd-free music players, they didn't create mobile gaming devices, mobile computers, mobile scanners, digital cameras (although they did have a hand in digital camera creation), digital video, mobile contact files, mobile spreadsheet or document applications or digital distribution of software (in general). Apple didn't create a lot of things.

What Apple did do is recognize that putting all these things together into a single device would answer a bunch of needs of people like me.

Discounting the fact that they did this and saying someone else would have gotten to the same point in time is not fair and is simply using hindsight for what it's worth - nothing.

boronathan
Jul 24, 2012, 01:38 PM
I have an honest question. I notice that there are some here who say what apple did was obvious and refuse to entertain the thought that it was obvious because of hindsight.

Well in that case what are some of the obvious things that will happen next that makes everyone look at it and go wow?

I don't think apple is the inventor of the world but I also find the it was obvious argument hard to swallow.

How come no other company did the obvious?! :D

LordVic
Jul 24, 2012, 01:44 PM
If Apple has in fact stolen/copied technology from Samsung, or anyone for that matter, I'm all for Apple having to pay up.

Apple has repetively in the past paid for FRAND based licencing agreements to use other companies patents and ideas. Many of the concepts and ideas that we credit apple for "innovating" on by putting in the smartphone, are patents that were nvented or owned by others.

Apple has a long history of patent lawsuits for and against. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation

It's a very long list.

Apple has absolutely no problem with paying for licenses (or buying companies who own those patents). They have done it in the past and continue to do it.

However, Apple refuses to license out their technologies in return.

In this case, Apple is paying Samsung 2.5% of the revenue generated from each iPhone for 3G patents that samsung has. They entered into this agrement with samsung.

1/2 of this claim apple is making is that they believe it's too high, and that instead of renegotiating directly with samsung, they're looking for a court mandate to force samsung to change it to 1.25%.

But on the flip side, instead of trying to negotiate with Samsung a fair and reasonable price for a licence for the 'stolen' use of patents, they're suing and hopeing the courts mandate a few billion dollar settlement, Completely bypassing initial negotiations for Fair and reasonable costs.

I'd be willing to bet that if Apple went ot samsung with open negotiations, Samsung would be likely willing to pay for them. With the ability to use licensed patents, you could develop new technologies and actually innovate instead of spending most of your time avoiding stepping on those same patents.

This "thermonuclear war" which we all like to reference by apple has probably had an even worse affect on innovation and design than if apple willingly opened negotiations for license agreements. R&D when trying to come up with something "new and cool" need to try and sidestep and avoid infringing on so many patents because of fear of lawsuits that it's damn near hard to come up with something new.

And Apples purposeful patent trolling has only made it harder. Apple has put in patent requests for some of the screwiest patents. The sad thing is they're being awarded. Patents for completing tasks that are 'common' are being awarded, Not based on the technology of the task, but just completion of the task.

For Example of a joke Patent: Apple has patented using NFC to check in at Airports. Not the NFC technology. Not the software, Not the checkin booths nor the server and software infrastructure. The CoNcept of "checking in using nfc technology". NFC was designed for doing this. ti's a standard, yet somehow apple now has a patent for this. Any other company who uses NFC trying to use NFC for checkin systems at airports nwo violate apples patent, a patent in which they don't even have an active technology in place to use.

So this is why when Patent and lawsuits come up with Apple, People get angry and frustrated. Apple is now being seen as the biggest barrier to innovation, rather than pioneers of it. They're using the patents to slow down competition instead of trying to be better at it then everyone else.

I love the apple products I do have. They're great device. But apple as a company leaves a sour taste in my mouth

Renzatic
Jul 24, 2012, 01:46 PM
How come no other company did the obvious?! :D

Plenty of companies were already doing the obvious. They just didn't package or market it quite so well.

samcraig
Jul 24, 2012, 01:47 PM
How come no other company did the obvious?! :D

Many companies innovate and for one reason or another - they can't get the patent, can't afford attorneys to fight for them and/or just never get noticed.

Go look up the story of Farnsworth and the Television set.

Flitzy
Jul 24, 2012, 01:48 PM
Apple is being absolutely ridiculous Here.

Not even. Samsung knew what they were doing and they still did it.

They rushed to create an iPhone clone just to dilute the market without a care in the world, in terms of copying the existing iPhone.

Samsung deserves everything they get - they're a horrible company and I hope they go penniless. Maybe then they'll learn to actually come up with an idea on their own rather then blatantly copying Apple.

jmgregory1
Jul 24, 2012, 01:48 PM
Yes, there was at least one document/web browser (Picsel ?) that allowed tap-to-zoom back then, and probably others. That's not what Apple patented.

At first glance, it looks like Apple got a patent on the (obvious) next step: tapping a second area after already zooming in on the first area, and recentering on that second area.

Who even thinks of trying to patent stuff like this? It's going to lead to a few major companies spending all their spare time thinking up patent applications for offensive and defensive purposes, while users lose out due to lack of available common gestures.

Worse, this war started by Apple has enormous potential to backfire and really cause trouble. As I mentioned previously, a major company other than Apple has an application in for fingertip scrolling. Imagine if they get that patent and no one, including Apple, can continue to use flick scrolling. We could all be back to trackballs and cursor keys or large scrollbars.

Software patents either need to be gotten rid of (as other countries did), or restricted to a year or two at most.

Obvious next step - it's obvious now because we live with it day in and day out. And that's how innovation is supposed to work, no? Perhaps you remember how things played out with vinyl records moving to tapes moving to compact discs moving to digital files? So we just say, "well, it's obvious that records were replaced by tapes and tapes replaced by cd's and cd's replaced by digital files. Why don't we just skip all those steps and the many patents they spawned and move right to the end technology?

And if we got rid of software patents, what company in their right mind would create software? If company A creates software to do something specific (patentable even), takes it to market and company B copies it and because company B is 10 times bigger can sell the software for less or even a loss (given they didn't put the same investment into writing the software) - is that fair, ethical or the right way to do things?

And in regards to other companies winning patents on things companies, including Apple are using today royalty/license-free, it will play out as a FRAND technology and Apple and Google/RIM/Nokia, etc will pay a percentage back to said company. The company that gets the patent may pressure all the players that they'll withhold the patent in order to drive the value of the patent up, but that is where the courts end up intervening to set some reasonable FRAND value.

samcraig
Jul 24, 2012, 01:51 PM
Not even. Samsung knew what they were doing and they still did it.

They rushed to create an iPhone clone just to dilute the market without a care in the world, in terms of copying the existing iPhone.

Samsung deserves everything they get - they're a horrible company and I hope they go penniless. Maybe then they'll learn to actually come up with an idea on their own rather then blatantly copying Apple.

You have no idea how long and how much work it takes to bring a phone to market. If you did - you wouldn't say anything remotely as ignorant as they rushed to create an iPhone clone.

And if they go penniless - what will happen to Apple. You know - the company you love so much uses components from the company you hate so much. What a dilemma for you

Renzatic
Jul 24, 2012, 01:52 PM
Obvious next step - it's obvious now because we live with it day in and day out. And that's how innovation is supposed to work, no? Perhaps you remember how things played out with vinyl records moving to tapes moving to compact discs moving to digital files? So we just say, "well, it's obvious that records were replaced by tapes and tapes replaced by cd's and cd's replaced by digital files. Why don't we just skip all those steps and the many patents they spawned and move right to the end technology?

Are you actually saying that "tap tap...tap tap" is akin to the evolution of media?

One is the march of technology, the other a nice convenience feature.

gotluck
Jul 24, 2012, 01:55 PM
Samsung deserves everything they get - they're a horrible company and I hope they go penniless. Maybe then they'll learn to actually come up with an idea on their own rather then blatantly copying Apple.

This horrible company manufactures a majority of the parts that make up the iPhone. If Apple is around, Samsung will get many pennies.

boronathan
Jul 24, 2012, 01:56 PM
Many companies innovate and for one reason or another - they can't get the patent, can't afford attorneys to fight for them and/or just never get noticed.

Go look up the story of Farnsworth and the Television set.

But why didn't the companies that could afford it do the obvious? What was so special about apple?

And what's the obvious next step today?

ncaissie
Jul 24, 2012, 02:00 PM
God I wish I was one of Apples Patent lawyers. :eek:

TMay
Jul 24, 2012, 02:00 PM
I really hope this mess for Apple results in the same smack down Oracel got which is $0 and having to pay Samsung legal fees.

A lot of thoses are crapents and should never of been granted in the first place.

Google not Samsung has the legal fees paid by Oracle. Samsung and Oracle have no lawsuit pending.

samcraig
Jul 24, 2012, 02:03 PM
But why didn't the companies that could afford it do the obvious? What was so special about apple?

And what's the obvious next step today?

Batteries will have better capacities. Screens will have better resolutions. be made as thin as possible. be "unbreakable" Components will get smaller. Devices will become more intuitive and all talk to each other for seamless integration (much like Bill Gates had hoped with appliances having an OS).

And lots of other things. You're asking a bunch of forum members to look into the future for obvious next steps. Obvious is extremely subjective.

HelveticaRoman
Jul 24, 2012, 02:03 PM
Why don't they all agree to put they equivalent of half the lawyers' fees into one big fat account and give it to veterans' charities?

Renzatic
Jul 24, 2012, 02:04 PM
But why didn't the companies that could afford it do the obvious? What was so special about apple?

See, Apple didn't completely invent the smartphone as we know it today. Everything in the iPhone is an extension of what came earlier, and there's plenty of proof showing the touchscreen candybar phone was where the industry was already headed. What they did was make it incredibly slick, smooth, attractive, and easy to use.

This is what Apple does best. I won't say they're not innovative at all, because they do come out with some incredibly clever stuff. But they are refiners moreso than inventors. They stand upon the shoulders of giants as much as any other company.

labars
Jul 24, 2012, 02:08 PM
The whole business of patents and IP is such a cluster****. It needs serious reworking, and I really hope that Apple doesn't recieve a single dollar from Samsung.

boronathan
Jul 24, 2012, 02:09 PM
See, Apple did completely invent the smartphone as we know it today. Everything in the iPhone is an extension of what came earlier, and there's plenty of proof showing the touchscreen candybar phone was where the industry was already headed. What they did was make it incredibly slick, smooth, attractive, and easy to use.

This is what Apple does best. I won't say they're not innovative at all, because they do come out with some incredibly clever stuff. But they are refiners moreso than inventors. They stand upon the shoulders of giants as much as any other company.

Agreed. Makes sense

TMay
Jul 24, 2012, 02:10 PM
Heres something that strikes me odd. And why Apple is receiving a lot of negativity over the lawsuits.

Apple violates Samsung Patent. Samsung agrees to go into licencing agreement. Apple continues selling product. Both Companies make millions.

Samsung violates (allegedly, still in most courts) Apple Patents. Apple refuses to licence any patents. Asks for injunctions and all out bans on All samsung products and claims Samsung is directly responsible for billions in lost sales, then accuses samsung of charging them too much for use of Samsungs Patents.


:eek:

Apple wonders why this "thermonuclear war" is costing them billions? Maybe it's their own damn fault. Try entering negotiations for licencing and you'd be amazed how much faster innovation happens when you're not busy spending millions on lawsuits and cumbersome ways of developing new tech's without stepping on eachothers patents.

Apple's patents are not FRAND encumbered. Apple doesn't have to provide licensing to Samsung. Samsung has to provide licensing to Apple for its FRAND encumbered patents, with Apple merely having to make an effort to negotiate a fair price. If that fails, and it has, Samsung wants to have an injunction against any Apple products that infringe. Most judicial bodies and standard setting organizations do not support Samsung (nor for that matter Motorola) with injunctions when negotiations fail. The courts have ultimate authority to determine fair cost when negotiations fail. I believe that will be how Samsung's licensing claims will be settled.

Renzatic
Jul 24, 2012, 02:16 PM
Agreed. Makes sense

Er, make that "didn't completely invent the smartphone". Dunno if you'll still agree with me after saying that. :P

boronathan
Jul 24, 2012, 02:19 PM
Er, make that "didn't completely invent the smartphone". Dunno if you'll still agree with me after saying that. :P

Lol no I knew it was a typo

LordVic
Jul 24, 2012, 02:23 PM
Er, make that "didn't completely invent the smartphone". Dunno if you'll still agree with me after saying that. :P

Lol no I knew it was a typo

lol, ya, that caused me a double take, but the wording of the post made me know what you really meant.

this is my biggest beef with the Apple fanboy crowd. Apple invented everything. From MP3 players, to Smartphones and heck, even the modern computer of course!

Apple has almost never been first to invent their first products. They did an amazing job at seeing what others have done, and merging the most popular stuff with eachother into a streamlined and extremely well engineered, and well designed package.

Mp3 players existed before the ipod. smartphones existed before the iphone. PC's existed before the Apple and Ultraportables existed before the Macbook Air.

Why si this such a hard concept?

gnasher729
Jul 24, 2012, 02:25 PM
And $0.005 per unit is a Fair Reasonable and Non discriminatory price?

And where do you get that number from?

jmgregory1
Jul 24, 2012, 02:25 PM
Apple has repetively in the past paid for FRAND based licencing agreements to use other companies patents and ideas. Many of the concepts and ideas that we credit apple for "innovating" on by putting in the smartphone, are patents that were nvented or owned by others.

Apple has a long history of patent lawsuits for and against. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation

It's a very long list.

Apple has absolutely no problem with paying for licenses (or buying companies who own those patents). They have done it in the past and continue to do it.

However, Apple refuses to license out their technologies in return.

In this case, Apple is paying Samsung 2.5% of the revenue generated from each iPhone for 3G patents that samsung has. They entered into this agrement with samsung.

1/2 of this claim apple is making is that they believe it's too high, and that instead of renegotiating directly with samsung, they're looking for a court mandate to force samsung to change it to 1.25%.

But on the flip side, instead of trying to negotiate with Samsung a fair and reasonable price for a licence for the 'stolen' use of patents, they're suing and hopeing the courts mandate a few billion dollar settlement, Completely bypassing initial negotiations for Fair and reasonable costs.

I'd be willing to bet that if Apple went ot samsung with open negotiations, Samsung would be likely willing to pay for them. With the ability to use licensed patents, you could develop new technologies and actually innovate instead of spending most of your time avoiding stepping on those same patents.

This "thermonuclear war" which we all like to reference by apple has probably had an even worse affect on innovation and design than if apple willingly opened negotiations for license agreements. R&D when trying to come up with something "new and cool" need to try and sidestep and avoid infringing on so many patents because of fear of lawsuits that it's damn near hard to come up with something new.

And Apples purposeful patent trolling has only made it harder. Apple has put in patent requests for some of the screwiest patents. The sad thing is they're being awarded. Patents for completing tasks that are 'common' are being awarded, Not based on the technology of the task, but just completion of the task.

For Example of a joke Patent: Apple has patented using NFC to check in at Airports. Not the NFC technology. Not the software, Not the checkin booths nor the server and software infrastructure. The CoNcept of "checking in using nfc technology". NFC was designed for doing this. ti's a standard, yet somehow apple now has a patent for this. Any other company who uses NFC trying to use NFC for checkin systems at airports nwo violate apples patent, a patent in which they don't even have an active technology in place to use.

So this is why when Patent and lawsuits come up with Apple, People get angry and frustrated. Apple is now being seen as the biggest barrier to innovation, rather than pioneers of it. They're using the patents to slow down competition instead of trying to be better at it then everyone else.

I love the apple products I do have. They're great device. But apple as a company leaves a sour taste in my mouth

It's completely possible that Apple is simply trying to reduce their licensing fees with Samsung for various technologies, including 3G. My question or comment is - which I assume is what Apple is arguing - how much is Samsung charging other competitors for the same thing? If it's less, then Samsung is in the wrong, if they are charging Apple the same or even less, then I agree that Apple is arguing for argument's sake (and billions of dollars they don't deserve).

If you think the issue is Apple and what they're patenting, then you have to say it's not Apple's fault, but rather the patent system that is the core of the problem. Samsung was awarded more patents last year than Apple. I'd be willing to bet that a bunch of their patents are also what you would consider to be a joke.

And as far as companies getting patents on things they are not or can't make again has nothing to do with Apple, but everything to do with the patent system. I've told this story before - how my company produces a wood product that no other company in the world can make. A customer (who happens to be a big retail chain known for patenting things) takes our product and gets a patent for an idea that we were pitching its use for. They can't make the product without us and in fact they didn't even give us any credit for the invention (it was in part our suggestion for using the product this way). Now they have the ability to threaten other customers from using this "patented" product that they themselves can't make without using our product and it is hampering our ability to sell others. So then we create a whole new product and one of the companies, another customer of ours, who we used a piece of equipment of theirs (not exclusive to their piece of equipment) to make the product is now applying for a patent on the new product we created. Clearly they are not the creators of the product and they will lose in court as we fight them on this - but that sets up a negative situation as they are our customer first whom we are selling product to - so we have to walk a fine line between telling them to f off for trying to patent our invention and keeping them happy buying our products.

LordVic
Jul 24, 2012, 02:30 PM
It's completely possible that Apple is simply trying to reduce their licensing fees with Samsung for various technologies, including 3G. My question or comment is - which I assume is what Apple is arguing - how much is Samsung charging other competitors for the same thing? If it's less, then Samsung is in the wrong, if they are charging Apple the same or even less, then I agree that Apple is arguing for argument's sake (and billions of dollars they don't deserve).

If you think the issue is Apple and what they're patenting, then you have to say it's not Apple's fault, but rather the patent system that is the core of the problem. Samsung was awarded more patents last year than Apple. I'd be willing to bet that a bunch of their patents are also what you would consider to be a joke.

And as far as companies getting patents on things they are not or can't make again has nothing to do with Apple, but everything to do with the patent system. I've told this story before - how my company produces a wood product that no other company in the world can make. A customer (who happens to be a big retail chain known for patenting things) takes our product and gets a patent for an idea that we were pitching its use for. They can't make the product without us and in fact they didn't even give us any credit for the invention (it was in part our suggestion for using the product this way). Now they have the ability to threaten other customers from using this "patented" product that they themselves can't make without using our product and it is hampering our ability to sell others. So then we create a whole new product and one of the companies, another customer of ours, who we used a piece of equipment of theirs (not exclusive to their piece of equipment) to make the product is now applying for a patent on the new product we created. Clearly they are not the creators of the product and they will lose in court as we fight them on this - but that sets up a negative situation as they are our customer first whom we are selling product to - so we have to walk a fine line between telling them to f off for trying to patent our invention and keeping them happy buying our products.
I also agree 100% with all of this :o

The system from the patent office, to how companies abuse it,e specially in the states is in need of a serious examination.

It'll never happen. The Companies who are getting these patents will continue to pay and lobby to be able to get these open ended Patents to continue this business.

But then we can start blaming the Government for the whole thing by extension of the patent office, and then start blaming the sheer corrupt nature of the USA political world and lobby groups, and hey, Why not blame it on the constitution :p (i'm purposely making a logical fallacy, don't take it seriously please)

I'm just saying, that yes, the system makes it possible for such patent trolling and for abuse. Doesn't mean that I have to like the companies who participate in it.

slattery69
Jul 24, 2012, 02:32 PM
It's completely possible that Apple is simply trying to reduce their licensing fees with Samsung for various technologies, including 3G. My question or comment is - which I assume is what Apple is arguing - how much is Samsung charging other competitors for the same thing? If it's less, then Samsung is in the wrong, if they are charging Apple the same or even less, then I agree that Apple is arguing for argument's sake (and billions of dollars they don't deserve).


It doesn't matter what others are charged Frand doesn't mean that, there is no set price. Nokia might get charged nothing as they contribute something Samsung need.
If apple don't contribute then they would pay more

Bug-Creator
Jul 24, 2012, 02:38 PM
Apple's patents are not FRAND encumbered. Apple doesn't have to provide licensing to Samsung.

That they don't "HAVE" to do it doesn't mean it isn't the smart move (*doh*)

Providing Samsung (and others) with access to those patents (for a reasonable fee) means:

- more $ for Apple
- more choice for costumers
- less bad PR for Apple
- less R&D spent on circumventing lame patents
- (therefor) more R&D to be spent on real innovation
- less $$ for the lawyers (now if that isn't the best part of it all :p )


The only downside is that the chances of this broken patent-system ever getting some sanity is even more reduced.


And don't forget, that soone or later Samsung,Google or else WILL find a patent that Apple really needs and they might not be in the mood for playing nice that time.

ahireasu
Jul 24, 2012, 02:39 PM
Well aren't you happy?
Apple is saying that people are blind and or completely idiots,morons etc.
or thats what is trying to make the courts believe :D.

Or else who in his right mind would go to buy a phone or tablet and confuse apple with samsung... seriously?

I like apple products but i feel like throwing up whenever i see such a move from apple , yes the tap etc cost bilions but 3g patents half a cent...... way to go apple.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 24, 2012, 02:42 PM
Google not Samsung has the legal fees paid by Oracle. Samsung and Oracle have no lawsuit pending.

In Oracle vs Google. Oracle lost big time. They got $0 and have to pay Google's legal fees.

Replace Oracle with Apple and Google with Samsung and then I hope the same results happens.

jmgregory1
Jul 24, 2012, 02:43 PM
It doesn't matter what others are charged Frand doesn't mean that, there is no set price. Nokia might get charged nothing as they contribute something Samsung need.
If apple don't contribute then they would pay more

I'm not disagreeing - but Apple will make the argument they shouldn't pay any more than anyone else is paying. It's a common thing - years ago when I was selling to Wal-Mart, I had to sign off on an agreement that we wouldn't charge Wal-Mart any more than what we charge any other company. And if we did and Wal-Mart found out, they would charge us back the difference times whatever volume of product they purchased was. Apple is just going for this type of deal.

It's really easy to see why companies get into "creation of patentable technologies" given the payoff can be so staggeringly huge if they create something everyone else has to use - even if they don't "manufacture" the actual product.

samcraig
Jul 24, 2012, 02:44 PM
Storm is just brewing...


Apple secures multitouch-related patent dating back to 1995 from inventor (http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/24/apple-secures-multitouch-related-patent-dating-back-to-1995-from/#disqus_thread)

Oletros
Jul 24, 2012, 02:51 PM
And where do you get that number from?

From the article:

While Samsung has been requesting a royalty rate of 2.4% on Apple's sales of 3G devices, Apple argues that the amount should only be one-half cent per unit based on Samsung's small share of essential 3G patents and a belief that the royalty should be calculated on the cost of the baseband processor rather than the entire device.

----------

I'm not disagreeing - but Apple will make the argument they shouldn't pay any more than anyone else is paying. It's a common thing

Others companies don't pay only money

LordVic
Jul 24, 2012, 02:52 PM
Storm is just brewing...


Apple secures multitouch-related patent dating back to 1995 from inventor (http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/24/apple-secures-multitouch-related-patent-dating-back-to-1995-from/#disqus_thread)

The sheer fact that it was apple who now holds this patent (on something that shouldnt be patentable IMHO) absolutely terrifies me.

Are we going to start seeing lawsuits against every tech company featuring multi touch displays?

Could you imagine? Why else woudl apple go after htis patent?

entatlrg
Jul 24, 2012, 02:54 PM
Samsung sucks.

Hope Apple gets every penny.

Glideslope
Jul 24, 2012, 02:55 PM
You need to look beyond the numbers. This has become personal between
Tim and Choi Gee.

What ever happened in that May 2012 meeting between them started the fuse.
This will never end.

Apple is gonna win this trial people, and they should have asked for $3 Billion.:apple:

Oletros
Jul 24, 2012, 02:56 PM
Apple is gonna win this trial people, and they should have asked for $3 Billion.:apple:


Can you say the Lotto winner numbers?

TMay
Jul 24, 2012, 02:56 PM
That they don't "HAVE" to do it doesn't mean it isn't the smart move (*doh*)

Providing Samsung (and others) with access to those patents (for a reasonable fee) means:

- more $ for Apple
- more choice for costumers
- less bad PR for Apple
- less R&D spent on circumventing lame patents
- (therefor) more R&D to be spent on real innovation
- less $$ for the lawyers (now if that isn't the best part of it all :p )


The only downside is that the chances of this broken patent-system ever getting some sanity is even more reduced.


And don't forget, that soone or later Samsung,Google or else WILL find a patent that Apple really needs and they might not be in the mood for playing nice that time.

Apple makes a pile of money on its devices: licensing would dilute that...except in the case of another company having some superior tech to offer. Hence why Apple and MS have patent cross licensing agreements.

samcraig
Jul 24, 2012, 02:59 PM
The sheer fact that it was apple who now holds this patent (on something that shouldnt be patentable IMHO) absolutely terrifies me.

Are we going to start seeing lawsuits against every tech company featuring multi touch displays?

Could you imagine? Why else woudl apple go after htis patent?

Exactly. And lord know what other patents they are going after "from the archives" to wage their war.

TMay
Jul 24, 2012, 02:59 PM
In Oracle vs Google. Oracle lost big time. They got $0 and have to pay Google's legal fees.

Replace Oracle with Apple and Google with Samsung and then I hope the same results happens.

Hope all you want.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 24, 2012, 03:03 PM
Hope all you want.

well it is not like Apple's cases have been going that well for them. They have lost and had their patent invalidated left and right.

cocky jeremy
Jul 24, 2012, 03:04 PM
About time that the ripoffs have to pay up for stealing Apple's IP.

djphat2000
Jul 24, 2012, 03:18 PM
storm is just brewing...


apple secures multitouch-related patent dating back to 1995 from inventor (http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/24/apple-secures-multitouch-related-patent-dating-back-to-1995-from/#disqus_thread)

lmfbo! :)

KnightWRX
Jul 24, 2012, 03:18 PM
About time that the ripoffs have to pay up for stealing Apple's IP.

Hum, the "ripoffs" don't have to pay up. This story is about what Apple is asking for, doesn't mean they're going to get it. In Oracle vs Google, Oracle was also asking for Billions. Guess how much they got ? :p

kangsw2
Jul 24, 2012, 03:21 PM
I love how apple created nothing but copying &upgrading from other company stuff to make better stuff and call themselve "the revolutionary."

even what they call "retina" couldn't happen if samsung& LG didn't help them.

Lennholm
Jul 24, 2012, 03:22 PM
So Apple is being ridiculous with their patents but Samsung is not?

Generally speaking, yes. Samsung's patents are for technologies, actual innovations, not mere clever ideas like "tap to zoom".

djphat2000
Jul 24, 2012, 03:22 PM
well it is not like Apple's cases have been going that well for them. They have lost and had their patent invalidated left and right.

That they have. But, they have also stopped the sale of some products as well.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/apple-wins-eu-wide-ban-on-galaxy-tab-7-7-tab-10-1n-not-covered/

They have forced Samsung to make changes to there devices so that they don't infringe either. So, it may not be a big heaping win every time out the gate for Apple. But, they haven't been shut out and lost each time out either.

Now this $2.5 Billion on the other hand. If they win that. Then well. Yeah. That's a big win.

TMay
Jul 24, 2012, 03:23 PM
well it is not like Apple's cases have been going that well for them. They have lost and had their patent invalidated left and right.

Arguably Apple is doing much better than Moto, Samsung, or HTC, and only one of those entities, Samsung, is making any decent money in phones.

KnightWRX
Jul 24, 2012, 03:26 PM
even what they call "retina" couldn't happen if samsung& LG didn't help them.

"Retina" displays on phones were being done as far back as 2006.

TMay
Jul 24, 2012, 03:29 PM
Exactly. And lord know what other patents they are going after "from the archives" to wage their war.

Patents just being granted that were applications at the time of the iPhone release would seem to offer the most potential for Apple.

Sacird
Jul 24, 2012, 03:33 PM
Storm is just brewing...


Apple secures multitouch-related patent dating back to 1995 from inventor (http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/24/apple-secures-multitouch-related-patent-dating-back-to-1995-from/#disqus_thread)

I never know all the facts about these kind of things (as does no one else) since I am not a high up at any of these companies. The most fun out of all of this in someways, or most interesting thing is the absolute HATRED people have for apple at sites like the linked one and even here. If the world was based only on net opinions then you would think they would be in worse shape than Sony is.

Goes to show the net is a very, very, vocal minority and you can ignore it all the way if you are a company. I wouldn't personally if I was a CEO but just saying I find it kind of funny.

Hell of a lot of google juice on the chin of people though,I don't know how horse mouth Page and CO pulled that off, they should get some kind of an award for making the net love them with such passion. MS seems to have a neutral view for the most part.

Observation is all. None of this will stop anything from selling, and no one is becoming a monopoly. 1st world country problems FTW.

gaximus
Jul 24, 2012, 03:36 PM
No the first iPhone wasn't revolutionary. It didn't even runs 3rd party apps, for heaven's sake. The only thing different was multi-touch. I had a touch based Windows CE based phone at the time that ran circles around it. It's just that Apple made smartphones POPULAR because of the core fanatical fanbase.

They need to stop these ridiculous lawsuits.

I when I got my first smart phone it was a HTC tilt with windows CE. I got it while looking at getting the first iPhone. The sales man at AT&T said get this phone it's the same price and it has a better camera, gps, third party apps, 3G and faster processor. I took it back after 2 weeks because it was a piece of ****. The screen was unresponsive to finger input, the camera would stutter, the battery sucked. It was a pain in the ass to get applications. I got the iPhone after that and it was amazing. So fluid and easy to use. Text messages were all on the same screen like an instant messenger. There were no menus or complicated settings. One button. Yes it was revolutionary

jcpb
Jul 24, 2012, 03:42 PM
One, Florian Mueller is a known Oracle-sponsored Android troll (thanks, SEC) and all of his comments are suspect.

Two, Apple is being an ass with its damages claim. There is absolutely nothing reasonable about $2.5B for design infringements. If I were the CEO of Samsung I'd simply break every component supplier contract with Apple, to hell with breach of contract provisions. Losing $12B of contracts won't mean much, but watching Apple scramble for alternatives in the wake of component shortages and inability to fulfill consumer demand for its products is a dish best served cold.

Amacfa
Jul 24, 2012, 03:43 PM
Once again, the actual code/implementation should be patented not the general idea. If a kid can code "tap to zoom" or "slide to unlock" in his basement in a few days, it should not be patented. Retarded.

Yes! Especially if a kid makes the light bulb in his basement shortly after Thomas Edison created the light bulb, he should be able to reap profits too, despite Edisons years of research and failed attempts.

Renzatic
Jul 24, 2012, 03:47 PM
Yes! Especially if a kid makes the light bulb in his basement shortly after Thomas Edison created the light bulb, he should be able to reap profits too, despite Edisons years of research and failed attempts.

Pretty apt comparison, considering Edison wasn't the first to create the lightbulb. He just improved upon previous designs and marketed himself as the inventor.

Judas1
Jul 24, 2012, 03:49 PM
Those ridiculous valuations should give people a clue as to how silly Apple's position is in this whole patent lawsuit fiasco is. They want 2 dollars per unit for trivial patents. Need I say more? Like those patents are even close to that value when you consider all the work that goes into a smartphone, both making the hardware, and writing the software. And whats up with that one patent Apple thinks is worth $24? Really? Their argument that Samsung gained 2 billion dollars off of those silly patents is plain stupid. People bought Samsung for many reason: price, value, hardware specs, android, etc. And not for any of Apple's trivial patents. Silly Apple. I hope they get whats coming.

Amacfa
Jul 24, 2012, 03:50 PM
One, Florian Mueller is a known Oracle-sponsored Android troll (thanks, SEC) and all of his comments are suspect.

Two, Apple is being an ass with its damages claim. There is absolutely nothing reasonable about $2.5B for design infringements. If I were the CEO of Samsung I'd simply break every component supplier contract with Apple, to hell with breach of contract provisions. Losing $12B of contracts won't mean much, but watching Apple scramble for alternatives in the wake of component shortages and inability to fulfill consumer demand for its products is a dish best served cold.
And that's why you're no executive. Ever heard the term Business is Business? It would still be in Samsungs best interest to continue to engage in business contracts with one of the biggest company's on the market. Leave your emotions out of business decisions.

LordVic
Jul 24, 2012, 03:54 PM
Leave your emotions out of business decisions.

This is why I think this Nuclear war on patents is going to hurt Apple most.

Jobs made it personal. He made the decision to go full tilt after everyone purely out of spite and not necessarily wise business.

he was an apt business man, but in his litigation happy "destroy everyone else" mode, I think he might have made a huge mistake.

Amacfa
Jul 24, 2012, 03:55 PM
Pretty apt comparison, considering Edison wasn't the first to create the lightbulb. He just improved upon previous designs and marketed himself as the inventor.

I think you missed that I was talking about the importance of the patent system. An example:

Brilliant man has idea for an invention and invents the lightning rod which protected buildings and ships from lightning damage. A savvy cherry picker steals brilliant man’s invention and makes fortune. (Ben Franklin-As brilliant man)

Brilliant man invents the light bulb, you know, for light. Another savvy cherry picker steals brilliant man’s invention and makes a fortune. (Thomas Edison, this time)

Noticing a trend?

Now, brilliant man decides he is no longer going to put his time, effort, and resources into making inventions because he cannot profit from them. (No matter what anyone tells you, everyone is guided by Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand”). Therefore, the utility (economist’s way of measuring satisfaction/happiness) of society as a whole plummets. If you decide to become an inventor and create ideas, it is the responsibility of the inventor to patent, track, and maintain confidentiality of his intellectual property.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 24, 2012, 03:55 PM
That they have. But, they have also stopped the sale of some products as well.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/apple-wins-eu-wide-ban-on-galaxy-tab-7-7-tab-10-1n-not-covered/

They have forced Samsung to make changes to there devices so that they don't infringe either. So, it may not be a big heaping win every time out the gate for Apple. But, they haven't been shut out and lost each time out either.

Now this $2.5 Billion on the other hand. If they win that. Then well. Yeah. That's a big win.
Well german courts are the east Texas patent courts of the EU. Also they have not gone to full trail yet.

Tones2
Jul 24, 2012, 03:59 PM
I when I got my first smart phone it was a HTC tilt with windows CE. I got it while looking at getting the first iPhone. The sales man at AT&T said get this phone it's the same price and it has a better camera, gps, third party apps, 3G and faster processor. I took it back after 2 weeks because it was a piece of ****. The screen was unresponsive to finger input, the camera would stutter, the battery sucked. It was a pain in the ass to get applications. I got the iPhone after that and it was amazing. So fluid and easy to use. Text messages were all on the same screen like an instant messenger. There were no menus or complicated settings. One button. Yes it was revolutionary

I think what I actually had was the HTC Tilt! I'm not 100% sure, but it was the top of the line HTC Windows mobile phone at the time. And your salesman was right, it WAS able to run 3rd party apps - which the iPhone could NOT - this was a HUGE deal. It also was 3G, had a much better camera than the iPhone that did NOT stutter, did have GPS, more RAM, a faster processor, etc. The battery did NOT suck, and you could change the battery. I forget the internal storage but I believe I could get a 8GB microSD card at the time when iPhone was only 4GB. (I'm not sure it could have been 16GB vs 8GB iPhone, but it was more). I had that phone for 2 years through the first iPhone. The finger input was not as good as the phone but was acceptable. You could also use a stylus which I didn't mind.

The 3rd party apps ALONE made this better than the iPhone. I used it as an eReader, internet radio streamer, played games, all kind of reference and entertainment apps, etc - whereas the iPhone was just a phone with a music player not large enough to store many songs in. And even though the iPhone browser was better than the HTC one, it was SO SLOW that it made it fairly useless. The iPhone looked cooler and had much superior marketing and existing fan base, so it blew away the HTC sales wise and took over the market. In that sense, it revolutionized the smart phone market by making it mainstream, but the iPhone 1 was NOT a better phone, period.

LordVic
Jul 24, 2012, 03:59 PM
(no matter what anyone tells you, everyone is guided by adam smith’s “invisible hand”). .

b.s.

Amacfa
Jul 24, 2012, 04:00 PM
This is why I think this Nuclear war on patents is going to hurt Apple most.

Jobs made it personal. He made the decision to go full tilt after everyone purely out of spite and not necessarily wise business.

he was an apt business man, but in his litigation happy "destroy everyone else" mode, I think he might have made a huge mistake.

I agree wholeheartedly at Jobs' s statement being emotional, but the direction the company is taking with its legal proceedings is not solely in existence because of a former CEO's emotional statement. You can get emotional on making the right business decision as much as a bad business decision.

Tigger11
Jul 24, 2012, 04:01 PM
OK, so why are Apple applying one rule for their grievances and a totally different rule when determining the cost of infringing on a competitors product. Justify to me how a bouncy graphic with purely visual effect, has a greater potential value than a 3G technology essential for your hardware to operate.

First of all Samsung doesnt own all the 3G patents, there are a total of over 100 that make up the 3G standard, Samsung owns a couple of them. Motorola has the majority, Samsung is 4th or 5th on the list. All of the owners agreed to treat the patents as FRAND in order for the patents to be part of the 3G standard. Samsung sells a part with all the royalty rights (everyones) for about $1, on the other hand they believe because Apple isnt using their part for the iPhone/iPad that Apple should pay a royalty (to them for just their patents) of 2.4% on the total cost of the device which means they want $6 - $20 a unit depending on how much flash (8, 16, 32, 64) Apple installs, despite 3G not knowing or carrying about how much flash is installed in the device. They also want it based on list price (ie what Walmart) sells it for, not the price that Apple sells it to Walmart, etc at. Its very similar to the lawsuit that Microsoft is currently involved in where several companies want royalties based on the cost of the computer Windows 7 is installed in, not the money Microsoft is actually paid for the OS all to use FRAND patents.
If Samsung were asking for $1 a unit (that they sell the part for) or even $5 a unit, thats one thing, but deciding that because its apple, you can charge a percentage of the total cost of the device instead of the cost of the part that you sell to people with the rights, is silly and against the entire FRAND process.

Amacfa
Jul 24, 2012, 04:04 PM
b.s.

So society doesn't benefit from individual ambition? Think of how many individual start-ups have happened in the past ten years.

jcpb
Jul 24, 2012, 04:05 PM
And that's why you're no executive. Ever heard the term Business is Business? It would still be in Samsungs best interest to continue to engage in business contracts with one of the biggest company's on the market. Leave your emotions out of business decisions.
Why continue to do business when your customer is suing your pants off in what is essentially forcing you to admit defeat?

What "business is business"? This is an all-out war, and $2.5B is entirely unreasonable even from a B2B standpoint. This isn't a "settlement" anymore.

LordVic
Jul 24, 2012, 04:06 PM
So society doesn't benefit from individual ambition? Think of how many individual start-ups have happened in the past ten years.

There si more to it. There's a reason why there are hundreds of variations of the ideals and ideologies behind the many different forms of government and economic systems.

Innovation has, and will be a mixture of reasons. Some people do it for the money. No doubt. Some do it for personal growth, some for "feeling good", some because they believe they are bettering society and human kind.

to make some blanket statement that all mankinds advancements are the curtesy of greed and the mighty dollar is pure ignorance and leans way to heavily on the exclusivity of one ideology.

lucas107
Jul 24, 2012, 04:10 PM
Anyone defending Apple is clearly a fan boy. You can't have both. Either Apple copied other phones to make the iPhone or these patients were obvious. Pretty much everything in the iPhone was done before. Apple's only real first was to successfully market a smart phone and make it a must have. You can't patent the idea of it working better you can only patent the way you made it work better. Also anyone saying it's in their right because it's the law is also dumb. A stupid law does not make something right.if the law was you could shoot puppies for chewing your slippers I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say I don't like it but I stand by your choice of puppy murder since its fine by the law.

Amacfa
Jul 24, 2012, 04:10 PM
Why continue to do business when your customer is suing your pants off in what is essentially forcing you to admit defeat?

What "business is business"? This is an all-out war, and $2.5B is entirely unreasonable even from a B2B standpoint. This isn't a "settlement" anymore.

Whether they drop or continue the contracts, Apples' legal proceedings against Samsung don't go anywhere. Samsung is not the only manufacturer for the parts Samsung is contracted to make. You would just be dropping 12 Billion dollars in revenue and whatever penalty that accompanies the breach in contract.

Renzatic
Jul 24, 2012, 04:10 PM
I think you missed that I was talking about the importance of the patent system. An example:

Brilliant man has idea for an invention and invents the lightning rod which protected buildings and ships from lightning damage. A savvy cherry picker steals brilliant man’s invention and makes fortune. (Ben Franklin-As brilliant man)

Brilliant man invents the light bulb, you know, for light. Another savvy cherry picker steals brilliant man’s invention and makes a fortune. (Thomas Edison, this time)

Noticing a trend?

Now, brilliant man decides he is no longer going to put his time, effort, and resources into making inventions because he cannot profit from them. (No matter what anyone tells you, everyone is guided by Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand”). Therefore, the utility (economist’s way of measuring satisfaction/happiness) of society as a whole plummets. If you decide to become an inventor and create ideas, it is the responsibility of the inventor to patent, track, and maintain confidentiality of his intellectual property.

You're argument is based upon the assumption that Apple actually invented something that required copious amounts of time, effort and money to create. Rather, I see most of their patents as an extension to already established methods, or natural evolutions to previous designs.

We'll use kdarling's example of tap to zoom. It's been seen previously. Might even already have a patent existing for it. So what Apple does is take that basic idea, adds an extra step, which allows an already zoomed screen to recenter where you tap. It's a logical progression of the base idea, and probably didn't take the programmers at Apple much effort to think up and implement the idea.

The fact Apple patented this and and as many other similarly small features that they could get away with doesn't show me that they're trying to protect their hard earned IP, rather they're being cheap cheesy bastards.

It's like adding a twist of lemon to tomato sauce, patenting the idea of adding lemon, then turning around and suing a bunch of restaurants that sell spaghetti.

Amacfa
Jul 24, 2012, 04:12 PM
to make some blanket statement that all mankinds advancements are the curtesy of greed and the mighty dollar is pure ignorance and leans way to heavily on the exclusivity of one ideology.

That's not what I said. I said everyone in society benefits from the Invisible hand. I did not say it was dependent.

jcpb
Jul 24, 2012, 04:19 PM
Whether they drop or continue the contracts, Apples' legal proceedings against Samsung don't go anywhere. Samsung is not the only manufacturer for the parts Samsung is contracted to make. You would just be dropping 12 Billion dollars in revenue and whatever penalty that accompanies the breach in contract.
A single chip foundry costs far more than $12B when you have to not only keep up with demand, but keep up with yearly process improvements. $12B is nothing to Samsung.

Apple needs Samsung. Samsung doesn't need Apple.

When is the last time Samsung needed a critical hardware component from Apple to build its own competing products? See the huge power disparity here? I'm afraid you don't, because you're still cheerleading for Apple.

You are not winning.

----------

That's not what I said. I said everyone in society benefits from the Invisible hand. I did not say it was dependent.
No, I call BS on that statement. You're just trying to change the subject.

Oletros
Jul 24, 2012, 04:19 PM
If Samsung were asking for $1 a unit (that they sell the part for) or even $5 a unit, thats one thing, but deciding that because its apple, you can charge a percentage of the total cost of the device instead of the cost of the part that you sell to people with the rights, is silly and against the entire FRAND process.

Samsung only charges a percentage of the net sale value to Apple? It is asking a percentage of the total net value of the device against FRAND?

You must be an IP expert, can you pouint where do you have seen the things you claim?

Renzatic
Jul 24, 2012, 04:21 PM
I've come to realize all these arguments we've been having over the last couple of patent threads come down to two viewpoints.

Viewpoint A: Apple spent time and effort creating their products, and have the right to sue others to protect their IP.

Viewpoint B: Apple has taken an absolute ton of ideas previously seen in the market, tweaked them, polished them, and were granted a patent for these tweaks. Now they're suing companies over patents that shouldn't have been patented in the first place specifically to weld against their competitors in the market.

A has a point. Everyone has the right to earn and protect their inventions. But viewpoint B sees it as Apple spamming the patent office with every thing they can throw at it in an attempt to see what sticks so they can curtail the competition.

Which one's right? Well...that's what we're here to talk about. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3018396/Misc/arms.gif