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.
Facebook, Google and Other Silicon Valley Companies Side with Samsung in Patent Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
When I think back to the 60's and 70's - the youth then went on marches for things that mattered e.g. civil rights, anti-war etc. etc.
What do today's youth do? Compare the latest games and worship a tech company - what a sad indictment. If you want to make a protest then do it over things that really matter, geez-aloo.
What do today's youth do? Compare the latest games and worship a tech company - what a sad indictment. If you want to make a protest then do it over things that really matter, geez-aloo.
Last edited:
wow! good on you. and you are here for what exactly? dont have anyone to socialise with?
I'm here to discuss technology with people all over the world. I'm just not gonna sell my soul, house, and dog just b/c Tim Cook said so. And yeah I have people to "socialise" with. Hung out with some friends last night. Had a blast. And some of them even had android phones *gasp* I'm definitely getting thrown out of the Apple gated community for sure, this time.
This comment pretty much sums up why Apple fans aren't taken seriously at all.
While i semi-agree, and I don't think their commentary should have impact, because it should be based on unbiased and objective facts (like any court case)
I can at least understand WHY these other companies are getting annoyed and upset by Apple and the state of the tech industry. The case, due to the juror and due to many of the patents that Apple has claimed were violated (really, if you read them, it's embarassing, like "drawing an object on a GUI" or "transparency in a graphic environment"), Apple runs the risk of essentially becoming a barrier to innovation by attempting to block the use of foundation principles of Computer and mobile operating.
We all know (or should know by now), that no Tech is completely created in a vacuum. Innovation is the game these days, not invention, and most technologies, (yes, including Apple), have used other concepts, to build their own innovation.
So if this lawsuit validates Apple, these companies should be very much worried that many of their innovations will be unusable. is it entirely Apple's fault? maybe not, they're just gaming a system that the US courts have devised. But at somepoint reasonability should stop this, and re-examine the patent system.
if you want to know why, the patent system doesn't work for software, go back to my post earlier in the thread outlining that software patents protect the wrong portion of an invention. They patent the end result, and not the methodology how to get there.
But yeah, in agreeance with you, these companies don't have an active stake in this trial and if they really had intention of stopping it, they should be fighting the patent office and getting these patents thrown out
Yes, let's all root for Apple! They're such an innocent little company, who never steals ideas (iOS 7) or messes up on anything (iOS 8, Apple Maps, ect)
Let's not get carried away. They're still a whole Coca-Cola (KO) and a McDonalds (MCD) away from that trillion dollar mark.
Just a note that other things have happened in the years since then. Among other things, Samsung won repeal of sales injunctions.
Most importantly, this past May, the award was reduced from $930 million to $548 million, after an appeals court ruled that Samsung was not in violation of Apple's claimed trade dress, because the latter was mostly functional and thus not protectable. (This decision was partly based on the statements of Apple's own lawyers at trial.)
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...g-appeal-lowers-apples-damages-award.1883468/
Also, I think we're still waiting to see what happens with a couple of Apple patents that have since been invalidated by the USPTO. Just one of those, the so-called pinch-to-zoom patent (not really), is about $150 million of the remaining award.
Btw, it's not just the companies mentioned in this article who think the 130 year old design patent law should not apply in today's highly integrated situations. US courts have also at times addressed the unfairness of the results brought about by it. I'd also bet that Apple's lawyers wouldn't want it ever applied against Apple. These things can cut both ways.
And why is that exactly, I assume you would argue that it should then be updated to better apply to todays environment based on what you said earlier (quoted below).
Sorry, I don't understand the question. As you referred to, the reasoning why the law doesn't make sense in many of today's situations was addressed in my post #400. And of course, in the amicus letter, which everyone in this thread should've read first.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/272131718/Amicus-Brief-in-Support-of-Samsung-Rehearing#scribd
(It goes without saying that if someone doesn't have a login for Scribd, they should get one if they're serious about wanting to engage in informed debate, instead of relying on headline summaries. Use Facebook or use a throwaway email address.)
Im also starting to think more and more this way...
The classic fight of good vs evil, I'm now thinking the evil was/is actually apple in the fight and people didn't see the true colours of those involved.
I just found it to be inconsistent, to first say that IP laws should apply and damages awarded, just not in this case. If the law is unfitting, then the idea that it should be updated to fit better would seem like a good idea no? The argument here is that the size of the payment for damages is not in proportion to the damage made. On the other hand, it seems like many companies just shrug of a lower penalty as cost of doing business and carry on as usual.
Problem is, Apple has never been squeeky clean
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation
lawsuits have been in their history since day 1. both ways, being sued for business practices / theft, and sueing lots of people.
I don't think there's ever been a year where Apple wasn't embroiled in some controversy
it was easier to hide when Apple was small, and even failing. But Steve Jobs, was a brilliant charismatic man who had people eating out of the palm of his hand, even if he wasn't truthful in his statements.
i'll say it again, like i've always said it. Their products are fantastic. But as a corporation, they have been manipulative, deceptive and pretty damn evil since at least the 90's.
Well, I would ask you to find the place where I said I didn't like Apple, but that would be a waste of time because I never actually said that. I have an iPhone....????
Also, I never said these companies ideas were original. Of course they were inspired by Apple. But when you see your competitor making products that people love and that sell really well, why would you continue to make something that's not like that on purpose? Consumers demand a good build quality (largely due to apples ability to make a beautiful piece of hardware), and can you really blame other companies for attempting to meet that demand? Or are they supposed to use dated materials (plastic) and suffer losses just to avoid being called a copycat by some fanboys ion macrumors? Thinking clearly isn't your cup of tea, but sounding like an idiot sure is.
And like all haters we take a blatan u-turn. so long man. Do provide more laughs. I need them.
Oh and if you do the same **** everytime. Wait for another companies product and get "inspired" by them everything and your products are never good enough to attract the market. You are a copy cat. You really are a waste of time.
It's not a backtrack. Sorry if this sounds rude, but you're butchering the logic of what we say.
Ah. The argument is not that no damages should be awarded. But rather that, as we have both said, the size of the award is clearly not in proportion to the offense.
With utility patents, courts consider their contribution to the amount the patent holder lost, and then allow tripling the damages. That is plenty for the infringement. Design patents can use this method, btw, if it means more money.
It's only the ADDITIONAL award method that design patents get (because of the 1887 change to help a carpet maker get a higher award) of taking the ENTIRE profits, that people are against.
In other words, the argument is only that this particular old statute... created for much simpler situations... which gives design patents the possibility of awards far outside of their actual impact, needs to be changed or removed, and just use the normal patent award methods.
Even the Appeals Court did not disagree, but simply said their hands were tied, unless Congress updates the law:
"(Law Professors) argue that an award of a defendant’s entire profits for design patent infringement makes no sense in the modern world. Those are policy arguments that should be directed to Congress. We are bound by what the statute says, irrespective of policy arguments that may be made against it." - Appeals Court
Last edited:
The bottom is similar but it stops there. The s6 is bigger than the iPhone 6 and the bezels are a lot smaller. Not only that s6 colors are very different than the iPhone 6. The home button s the very different. Even shape is different. Back of the s6 is glass whereas iPhone 6 has a metal back.
I honestly do not how someone could confuse the two phones. I've owned both iPhone 6 and galaxy s6. I really don't see how someone can confuse them unless they are just totally clueless about technology and gadgets.
![0x600.jpg]()
I like that even after your explanations of the differences, you didn't even need to mention one phone clearly says "SAMSUNG" on it.
There is a demographic out there that doesn't even know who makes the iPhone. For all they know, iPhone is a type of phone, not a brand.
Then that demographic needs to stick with Nokia 3310. No smartphones for them.
yeah, but those are the same people who will look at any phone and just call it an iphone anyways. their confusion doesn't come out of confusing two competing products in the same category, just not understanding that there are competing products in that same category.
Which is essentially the crux of Apple's argument in the lawsuit from the beginning, that Samsung copied the iPhone to a degree that the less informed buyers of smartphones didn't or couldn't discern a difference which therefore cost Apple $$.
But thats like calling all tissue paper "kleenix". just because your brand name is the most synonymous with a product market, doesn't mean, anyone else in the product market with a parity product is at fault.
its a really tricky argument to have. and can easily be seen both ways
I get what you're saying but Apple has on their side the fact that before 2007 smartphones looked pretty much like the BlackBerry Curve then after the introduction of the iPhone all of the sudden, voila, they all started to look like iPhones. And Samsung was the most shameless copier by a country mile.
Last edited: