You miss my point. Apple is trying to address competition through the courts instead of through product development. If they thought they could compete with products they would. Suing Samsung repeatedly, especially with these weak cases, signals to everyone that they are deeply concerned and not coping all that well with the competitive pressure.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Accuses Samsung's Version of Android and the Galaxy Note 10.1 of Infringing Patents
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You miss my point. Apple is trying to address competition through the courts instead of through product development. If they thought they could compete with products they would. Suing Samsung repeatedly, especially with these weak cases, signals to everyone that they are deeply concerned and not coping all that well with the competitive pressure.
You want Apple to spend less on lawsuits and more are innovating. So what, they can create more things for folks to copy without any punishment. Google would love that, they already think all things Apple should be de facto standards since they are popular
Meanwhile folks will continue too sue Apple over everything including exhausted SEP
----------
Judge Lucy Koh should really be pissed and fed up with these stupid lawsuits
They stop and she's out of a job
I hope they are tight.
Why have you extremely used all of their products if you dislike all of their products?
Over and out, Mork.
They would be sued for contract violation.
If they wait and refuse to sign any new contracts they would lose a ton of money cause making parts for Apple is big business for them
----------
That rule only applies to trademarks. Same as the use laws.
That you can go for years not using or defending a patent until someone makes it big off 'your' property is one of the biggest issues with US patent law. It is how patent trolling can even exist
Apple to sue Nintendo for its use of stylus for DS, DSi, DSiXL, DS3D, DS3DXL.
When was the stylus invented?
When was the stylus invented?
For all we know, Microsoft licensed the design. Thus no law suits.
----------
We haven't seen the full claims. For all we know Bloomberg mentioning the stylus is a total Macguffin.
There are a lot of experienced people on this forum old enough to not only remember the Newton, but to have worked on similar items.
Hardly. Look up GO Corporation and the PenPoint OS sometime. It used IBM's handwriting recognition (HWR) system. HWR was big in the 80s and early 90s.
For the younger set here with no memory of the Newton, its poor handwriting recognition (especially in the first version) was mocked for weeks by the popular Doonesbury comic, helping to publicly doom it with strips like this one:
Wow, what hyperbolic BS. Apple never bashed the use of a stylus as an option, just a requirement. And they implemented use from the first iPhone. Maybe it's not as fancy and cool as you want but it is there.
This really needs to stop. It was favorable when it made sense. Now Apple is looking like a bully.
Damn straight. Really stupid of them that their engineers and their lawyers are the same people
Oh wait. . .
Everyone is getting stupid over patents?
I'm not one sided about any of this. I think they're all idiots.
Apple is seriously becoming the next Microsoft. Such a shame.
Perhaps they need to focus again on innovation rather than lawsuits. They haven't released a new product since the iPad. Only refreshing the current products and suing the competition is not what made them who they are.
Perhaps they need to focus again on innovation rather than lawsuits. They haven't released a new product since the iPad. Only refreshing the current products and suing the competition is not what made them who they are.
I would have to question you wife's knowledge here because the two are totally different.
(to re-cap...) It's like saying 'stop spending money on securing your house, that's boring, just buy more stuff to put in your house. If you buy enough nice stuff for your house, it doesn't matter if you keep getting robbed!'. That's not a good plan.
The analogy does make sense, but I guess I wasn't clear enough on it. Apple claim they have ideas/innovations (patents) which Samsung (or whoever) did not have until they stole them from Apple. It isn't a case of just 'copying', because the patent can only belong to one of them. The idea can be copied, but the patent can't.
So when Apple spend a lot of money and time innovating, then successfully patent the fruits of that work, they have every right to protect that uncopy-able thing, because it protects their ability to profit from their investment. If they don't defend the patents they have ('secure their house' in my analogy) then anyone can walk in, and take the patent (the uncopy-able thing that means only they can profit from the investment) and also profit, but having not made the investment (or not managed to patent a similar idea in time).
Now, Samsung, or whoever, can challenge the validity of a patent, or challenge the charge of infringing it, that is fine. What isn't fine is company B using company A's investment in time and money for free and then expecting to remain unchallenged on it and company A just saying 'ah well, we'll make even more investments to try and make up the lost business and hope company B doesn't use our ideas for free again!'.
And sure the whole system is broken, and it virtually guarantees a string of ostensibly stupid lawsuits when you look at them individually, but Apple didn't write the rules, they just have to work with them the best they can.
'Don't hate the players, hate the game'.
I'm sorry the above analogy doesn't make any sense. It's more like sueing a neighbour with a similar home... Which is pointless. If you're secure and confident with what/how you've equipped/styled your home, you shouldn't be upset about been copied. rather you should be flattered knowing nothing is quite like the original...
The analogy does make sense, but I guess I wasn't clear enough on it. Apple claim they have ideas/innovations (patents) which Samsung (or whoever) did not have until they stole them from Apple. It isn't a case of just 'copying', because the patent can only belong to one of them. The idea can be copied, but the patent can't.
So when Apple spend a lot of money and time innovating, then successfully patent the fruits of that work, they have every right to protect that uncopy-able thing, because it protects their ability to profit from their investment. If they don't defend the patents they have ('secure their house' in my analogy) then anyone can walk in, and take the patent (the uncopy-able thing that means only they can profit from the investment) and also profit, but having not made the investment (or not managed to patent a similar idea in time).
Now, Samsung, or whoever, can challenge the validity of a patent, or challenge the charge of infringing it, that is fine. What isn't fine is company B using company A's investment in time and money for free and then expecting to remain unchallenged on it and company A just saying 'ah well, we'll make even more investments to try and make up the lost business and hope company B doesn't use our ideas for free again!'.
And sure the whole system is broken, and it virtually guarantees a string of ostensibly stupid lawsuits when you look at them individually, but Apple didn't write the rules, they just have to work with them the best they can.
'Don't hate the players, hate the game'.
Apple is seriously becoming the next Microsoft. Such a shame.
They're not at all like Microsoft. For them, patents were more like an extortion racket...
Apple sues Samsung, Samsung has to go to court. Thus Samsung is acting like a baby.