Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 4, 2011, 09:44 AM   #26
charlituna
macrumors G3
 
charlituna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post
No, it started as anti-plagiarism (actually trade dress violations but close enough). Then Samsung turned it into an anti-competitive argument, by trying to sue Apple for violations of FRAND technology.
Samsung didn't turn anything into an anti-competitive argument in regards to the trade dress issue. They know it isn't the same at all. They are just trying to get a position over Apple so they can play a 'tell you what since we are nice guys, you drop your case against us and we'll drop ours' move, which is going to fail cause Apple isn't likely to play ball due to the FRAND issue. Especially when Samsung has yet to show proof that the deal with Qualcomm to make chips using said tech doesn't include covering the licensing for folks to use the chips as Apple claims.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad-B-One View Post
In the end, current practice of Samsung looks like trying to block FRAND patents and or trying to double-dip.
yep it's a great argument. Apple can say that they paid the FRAND terms via Qualcomm and now Samsung is demanding they pay it again directly which makes the payments not FRAND compliant.
charlituna is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 09:46 AM   #27
starvingartist8
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
If I were to say that Apple copies everybody and takes credit for the innovations of others, you'd pick it apart, right? You'd probably feel the need to go out and correct that person's erroneous statement.

But, you see, it also works the other way. When someone says that everyone is copying Apple, that's not totally true, either. Like you see alot of people around here claiming that Android copped iOS completely, which isn't at all true. Just like you, they'd feel that need to go out and correct that person's erroneous statement.

Just because someone doesn't agree with Apple 100% doesn't make the Apple Haters, or Fandroids, or whatever. Remember that.
you're right. I could pick apart everything you just said then because none of it was said by me before. Well done on being the forums most stupid poster so far
starvingartist8 is offline   -5 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 09:47 AM   #28
Mad-B-One
macrumors 6502a
 
Mad-B-One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Southern Plains
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
It's not so easy, chipset makers AND phone makers pays licensing fees for radio patents to the 3G pool. Do you remember that in the Apple-Nokia case was also said that why Apple has to pay when the chipset maker was paying?
I see. Well, then it boils down to FRAND. But even so, the Nokia case was more about using certain technology in a certain way (easy user interface or so, don't remember exactly) and this case is about the technical part - basically using the chip by addressing it with software. In other words: Samsung says it would be okay to use the Qualcomm (yes sorry not BroadCom) chip as long as your software does not access it. That is silly. If the hardware producer paid the patent costs and sells the chip, that means the use of it is being payed as well and you use a software layer for it.
__________________
Join the Macrumors.com - Team Folding and donate your CPU & GPU processing power to a good cause!
Visit my YouTube channel: ThoringersTanks

Last edited by Mad-B-One; Nov 4, 2011 at 09:54 AM.
Mad-B-One is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 09:56 AM   #29
dBeats
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Samsung even copies Apple's lawsuits and still can't manage to do anything right. What a pitiful uncreative company....
dBeats is offline   10 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:02 AM   #30
TMay
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carson City, NV
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
It's not so easy, chipset makers AND phone makers pays licensing fees for radio patents to the 3G pool. Do you remember that in the Apple-Nokia case was also said that why Apple has to pay when the chipset maker was paying?
Not always; Apple petitioned and the court granted Apple access to Qualcom's licensing terms with Samsung with regard to the part(s) Apple purchased to see if in fact the licensing terms are broad enough to cover Apple.
TMay is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:02 AM   #31
mcarling
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkplanets View Post
I'm not a lawyer, and I especially don't know EU law... thank you for pointing this out (so I could Google it!).
You're welcome. If you're going to dig into this, I should mention that the EU renumbers the articles with each new treaty. Before the Lisbon treaties took effect in 2009, the competition articles, now 101 and 102, were numbered 81 and 82. Most of the precedents you'll find will refer to Article 82.


Quote:
Originally Posted by darkplanets View Post
You do know the point of IP, right?
I realize this question wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway. The Anglo-Saxon view of IP law is that the point is to maximize innovation. The European view of IP law is that it's meant to protect "moral rights."
mcarling is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:03 AM   #32
Frazzle
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Samsung should take a hint from their own TV division. They're doing some really original designs, no other manufacturer comes close. Even the software in those sets is fairly innovative. Why be a copycat?
Frazzle is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:08 AM   #33
darkplanets
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post
You're welcome. If you're going to dig into this, I should mention that the EU renumbers the articles with each new treaty. Before the Lisbon treaties took effect in 2009, the competition articles, now 101 and 102, were numbered 81 and 82. Most of the precedents you'll find will refer to Article 82.
Good to know.

Quote:
I realize this question wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway. The Anglo-Saxon view of IP law is that the point is to maximize innovation. The European view of IP law is that it's meant to protect "moral rights."
I could argue that doing one does the other, but I see your point.
darkplanets is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:08 AM   #34
The Great Boony
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by usptact View Post
I hope Apple will get back in quadruple what it did to Samsung
#TrollFail
The Great Boony is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:09 AM   #35
GQB
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by usptact View Post
I hope Apple will get back in quadruple what it did to Samsung
Which was what precisely?
Samsung 100% steals Apple's designs and products, Apple forces them to stop.
What part of that are you weeping over for Samsung?

Last edited by GQB; Nov 4, 2011 at 10:10 AM. Reason: damn... fell for the troll bait.
GQB is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:10 AM   #36
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by starvingartist8 View Post

I could literally assume you are a thief that is going to prison and cannot understand why. < I know that is exaggerated but you are going against the courts that means you are wrong lol.
How am I going against court opinion? I don't remember taking any sides in my previous post.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:13 AM   #37
vrDrew
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by starvingartist8 View Post
That is like me letting someone else copy my paintings because they sell me their paint....
That's a great analogy!

Nobody likes lawsuits and investigations. But they are immeasurably preferable to other methods of resolving business disputes. (Car bombs? Assassinations?) Businesses have had trade disputes for as long as their have been businesses or trade itself.

And, IMHO, Samsung has been playing a nasty game here. Of all the smartphone manufacturers out there, Samsung seems to have gone out of its way to copy Apple's products. We've all seen the pictures of the icons in its TouchWiz skin, and how closely they resemble Apple's.

But Apple isn't basing its claims against Samsung solely on design issues. Its basing its infringement claims on some pretty specific patents: "Scroll and Bounce Back"; "Multi Touch"; and the utility that automatically opens a phone dialer or e-mail client when you get a message with an address or phone number. And people claiming Apple is suing over "rounded rectangles" simply don't know what they are talking about.

For a company as big and successful as Samsung is, they seem to have wildly underestimated the implications of relying on their FRAND-encumbered IP as a basis for counterclaims. Maybe the executives there have gotten away with copying for so long that they didn't think anyone would notice.
vrDrew is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:15 AM   #38
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post
Samsung 100% steals Apple's designs and products
Really? Dutch and Australian courts doesn't think that
Oletros is offline   -7 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:23 AM   #39
seanclancy
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Apple doesn't take too kindly to competition

Android is simply trying to take a slice of Apple's monopoly.

I'm wondering if Apple is floundering a little as the iPhone 5 would have been a stronger statement than the iPhone 4s.

iPhone 4s simply sounds like an intermediate step.
It's true that Samsung are deliberately tailgating Apple, but it remains to be seen whether or not Apple can keep it's stock strong regarding the circumstances of late....

I may be wrong though

please feel free to throw fruit at my article about it
seanclancy is offline   -4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:24 AM   #40
The Great Boony
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post
Which was what precisely?
Samsung 100% steals Apple's designs and products, Apple forces them to stop.
What part of that are you weeping over for Samsung?
Samsung have copied Apple for years and have been getting away with it.

The cost of using Android on your hardware is going to get very expensive in the future, they are already paying Microsoft in excess of $15 per handset installed with android and Nokia $7 per handset.

A quick look at all phones released in 2007 alongside the iPhone just displays how advanced iPhone and iOS was.

I’d be curious to see what shape Android was in then… bearing in mind Google they hired two Apple engineers that had early sight of IOS way before iPhone was released.

Google is the devil and Samsung are one of their minions
The Great Boony is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:27 AM   #41
guch20
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Michigan, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
Really? Dutch and Australian courts doesn't think that
Wow, really?

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2011/10/25/5880881.htm

http://www.mobiledia.com/news/104469.html

In fact, the total opposite is true. Nearly every single court in the entire world that has had this case brought before them has sided with Apple, and in an hilarious turn of events, sides against Samsung when they counter-sue.

I wonder why that is. I wonder why courts all over the world agree with Apple that they've been slavishly copied and ripped off, while slapping Samsung down when they try to claim the same. It couldn't be that Apple has a point. Nah. It must be a global conspiracy!
__________________
"I want to put a dent in the universe." - Steven Paul Jobs (February 24, 1955– October 5, 2011). Not many people can take credit for changing the world, and even fewer have changed it for the better.
guch20 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:27 AM   #42
swagi
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Great Boony View Post
Samsung have copied Apple for years and have been getting away with it.

The cost of using Android on your hardware is going to get very expensive in the future, they are already paying Microsoft in excess of $15 per handset installed with android and Nokia $7 per handset.

A quick look at all phones released in 2007 alongside the iPhone just displays how advanced iPhone and iOS was.

I’d be curious to see what shape Android was in then… bearing in mind Google they hired two Apple engineers that had early sight of IOS way before iPhone was released.

Google is the devil and Samsung are one of their minions
You want to know what may be the real funny outcome of this?

That a patent on "slide to unlock" has to be licensed under FRAND terms.

Gee - ever thought abput that?
__________________
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
swagi is offline   -4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:28 AM   #43
The Great Boony
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanclancy View Post
Android is simply trying to take a slice of Apple's monopoly.

I'm wondering if Apple is floundering a little as the iPhone 5 would have been a stronger statement than the iPhone 4s.

iPhone 4s simply sounds like an intermediate step.
It's true that Samsung are deliberately tailgating Apple, but it remains to be seen whether or not Apple can keep it's stock strong regarding the circumstances of late....

I may be wrong though

please feel free to throw fruit at my article about it
Since when did rebranded counterfeit goods become direct competition in any market?
The Great Boony is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:31 AM   #44
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Great Boony View Post
The cost of using Android on your hardware is going to get very expensive in the future, they are already paying Microsoft in excess of $15 per handset installed with android and Nokia $7 per handset.
Any source to this because Samsung is paying MS $5 per "Android handset and no $15 and they doesn't have to pay Nokia nothing


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Great Boony View Post
I’d be curious to see what shape Android was in then… bearing in mind Google they hired two Apple engineers that had early sight of IOS way before iPhone was released.
Which engineers and when they were hired? I think you have read wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Great Boony View Post
Google is the devil and Samsung are one of their minions
And they must be cleansed in blood and burnt in Hell, uuuuhhhhhhhhh

----------

That's the problem of reading only headlines and not what Dutch and Australian courts have said.

Yes, really

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Great Boony View Post
Since when did rebranded counterfeit goods become direct competition in any market?
What counterfeit goods?
Oletros is offline   -3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:35 AM   #45
Kaibelf
macrumors 6502a
 
Kaibelf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad-B-One View Post
I see. Well, then it boils down to FRAND. But even so, the Nokia case was more about using certain technology in a certain way (easy user interface or so, don't remember exactly) and this case is about the technical part - basically using the chip by addressing it with software. In other words: Samsung says it would be okay to use the Qualcomm (yes sorry not BroadCom) chip as long as your software does not access it. That is silly. If the hardware producer paid the patent costs and sells the chip, that means the use of it is being payed as well and you use a software layer for it.
EXACTLY. It's essentially the same as someone going to the store and buying a TV, and then having the manufacturers of that TV's parts come to you demanding money for the "licenses" to use things like the remote sensor, flat panel, etc. You already paid for it when you bought the product. Samsung is under the impression that Apple paid good money for plastic, silicon, and various metals that just happened to be in a circuit configuration.
Kaibelf is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:35 AM   #46
guch20
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Michigan, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post

That's the problem of reading only headlines and not what Dutch and Australian courts have said.
So I guess it's common practice in Dutch and Australian courts to ban products from the company you're siding with. Interesting.

And for the record, let me say you really really should read those articles before you accuse me of not doing so. Neither of them goes anywhere near vindicating Samsung. Instead, they talk about how this is yet another victory for Apple.

Crazy how Apple just keeps winning these things and Samsung just keeps losing. Like I said, it obviously can't be that Samsung really did copy Apple. It must be a global conspiracy! Good thing Samsung has you on their side to keep fighting the good fight despite the odds and the evidence.
__________________
"I want to put a dent in the universe." - Steven Paul Jobs (February 24, 1955– October 5, 2011). Not many people can take credit for changing the world, and even fewer have changed it for the better.

Last edited by guch20; Nov 4, 2011 at 10:40 AM.
guch20 is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:37 AM   #47
Kaibelf
macrumors 6502a
 
Kaibelf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
What counterfeit goods?
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/cus...re-Design.html

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/cus...ace-Icons.html

and

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/cus...ge-Design.html
Kaibelf is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:40 AM   #48
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by guch20 View Post
So I guess it's common practice in Dutch and Australian courts to ban products from the company you're siding with. Interesting.
So I guess that you're talking without even read what I was answering and what Dutch and Australian courts have said.

Ps, Dutch courts have said that Samsung doesn't steal Apple DESIGNS and Australian courts have said the same. That's what I was answering.

And yes, Australian courts doesn't have sided with Apple, they have weighted who will lose more if an injunction is granted or not.

----------

And where are the counterfeit goods? This are Apple claims, no?
Oletros is offline   -3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:41 AM   #49
Thunderhawks
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad-B-One View Post
Nope. Not really. This patent law suit is about if Apple can buy chips from
BroadCom who pays licensing fees to use the 3G technology and therefore Apple does not have to pay or if Apple still infringes if they use these chips. Basically, is Samsung hindering competition by trying to rip off the competition because it would cash in twice... and also not offering a reasonable price for other companies to pay to use the technology. Problem would be if Samsung wins, does BroadCom get their money back since now Apple is licensing? Because that would mean the production of the chips gets cheaper and Apple would just shift the pay from BroadCom to Samsung. In the end, current practice of Samsung looks like trying to block FRAND patents and or trying to double-dip.
If a chipmaker pays a licensing fee and then sells the chips why would Samsung be allowed to double dip? Why not go after the next person who sells that used equipment with that chip?

Obviously the chipmaker's business is to sell that chip to as many customers as possible. That shouldn't come as a surprise to Samsung.

Samsung is looking for ways to hit back in whatever area, because they cannot defend that their copy is too close to the real thing.

Evolution in products and product design is always based on either a first idea or something that already exists.
The art of taking the good parts of a product and making a better one is a fine line balancing act.

Copying goes on in all areas of life.

Samsung's problem is that in the Asian world's thinking copying the master is a compliment. In that sense they probably don't even see what the problem is.
__________________
It's ready, when it's ready !
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." — Benjamin Franklin
Thunderhawks is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2011, 10:46 AM   #50
The Great Boony
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Well played sir... Well played...
The Great Boony is offline   2 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple and Samsung File List of Patent Claims and Accused Products Ahead of Second U.S. Patent Lawsuit MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 41 Feb 6, 2014 04:58 AM
Judge Invalidates Two Samsung Patent Claims Ahead of Second Patent Lawsuit with Apple MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 60 Jan 23, 2014 01:31 PM
Samsung's Request to Delay Investigation of Apple-Nokia Patent License Leaks Denied MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 75 Oct 18, 2013 11:58 AM
Lodsys Free to Continue Patent Threats Against Developers After Judge Tosses Apple's Legal Challenge MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 86 Oct 6, 2013 03:46 PM
European Commission Accepts Proposal by Penguin to End Apple E-Book Pricing Deal MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 20 Jul 26, 2013 09:58 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:05 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC