Apple Asking for $16M in Legal Fees After Samsung Patent Victory, Has Paid Lawyers More Than $60M

[kdarling]

IMO Google and Samsung should pay Apple a fee rather than digging thei heels in and going to the supreme court over BS.

Part of the problem was the exorbitant fee -- $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet -- that Apple had wanted for the relatively tiny amount of smartphone IP they owned .

Such a waste and it doesn't deter them because all it does is ban some old phone models.

It's ridiculous all around. For example, Apple's been using essential patents from Motorola and Samsung for years, and still hasn't paid a penny for some of them yet.

The S4 will continue to make more than 1 billion off Apple's patents with no penalty.

What Apple patents does the S4 use?

 

[gnasher729]

Where would Apple be if they didn't steal the GUI from Xerox?

Please tell us when and where exactly Apple stole anything from Xerox. I'd say you are trying to significantly rewrite history here. Apple paid for everything they got from Xerox, and they paid exactly what they agreed with Xerox in the first place.

 

[kdarling]

Please tell us when and where exactly Apple stole anything from Xerox. I'd say you are trying to significantly rewrite history here. Apple paid for everything they got from Xerox, and they paid exactly what they agreed with Xerox in the first place.

Not according to Xerox.

"Xerox contends that the Lisa and Macintosh software stems from work originally done by Xerox scientists and that it was used by Apple without permission."

"Xerox contends that Apple ''intentionally and purposefully concealed'' the derivation of the Lisa and Macintosh software from Xerox software. It said that Apple's copyrights on Lisa and Macintosh software were invalid and that the company had unjustly received benefits that rightfully belong to Xerox."

- New York Times on Xerox vs Apple lawsuit, 1989

 

[nia820]

Show some class, Apple.

Since when does any big cooperation has class?

 

[Sy7ygy]

Bury them.

 

[Tech198]

Wow... there are some big numbers there..

Legal cases sure are expensive.

 

[Michael Goff]

Microsoft built the world's largest software company largely on the back of copying Apple. Of course they're not doing well now, but where would Apple have been now had that not occurred?

Are you serious?

 

[bokdol]

Losers have this exact mindset of being jealous on others success

No one is stopping you from being a rich bast... (I mean lawyer)

yes there is. it's called integrity

 

[Technarchy]

Not according to Xerox.

Ahem...

"Most of Xerox's Suit Against Apple Barred
By ANDREW POLLACK, Special to The New York Times
Published: March 24, 1990


A Federal judge today dismissed almost all the closely watched copyright lawsuit filed by the Xerox Corporation against Apple Computer Inc.
In what appears to be a sweeping victory for Apple, Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the Federal District Court in San Francisco threw out five of the six counts in Xerox's lawsuit, saying, in essence, that Xerox's complaints were inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons."

 

[Renzatic]

Ahem...

"Most of Xerox's Suit Against Apple Barred
By ANDREW POLLACK, Special to The New York Times
Published: March 24, 1990

I love this line in particular...

"Apple also replied that while it might have borrowed ideas from Xerox, ideas were not protected by copyrights, only the way the ideas were expressed".

Nope. But ideas sure as hell are protected by patents these days, aren't they? Hence why "borrowing" the ideas Xerox first implemented with the Star is perfectly valid, so long as it's not a 100% copy, but Samsung "stealing" a patent as non-essential as bounce back is worth nearly a billion dollars in damages, even if the underlying programming, the expression, is different.

 

[kdarling]

In what appears to be a sweeping victory for Apple, Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the Federal District Court in San Francisco threw out five of the six counts in Xerox's lawsuit, saying, in essence, that Xerox's complaints were inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons."

Sure, legal technicalities. As the rest of that article goes on to say:

A Xerox spokesman said the company planned to appeal. ''The ruling does not mean Apple hasn't taken substantial portions of the Star and claimed them as their own,'' a statement issued by Xerox said. ''The court merely held, we believe erroneously, that Xerox does not have standing to present facts in support of our contention.''

The fact is, it's a myth that Apple paid Xerox to use their GUI as a jumping off point. At least, Xerox didn't think so.

(Note that I am not debating whether or not Apple did more work. They did. Xerox wasn't upset about that. They were upset that Apple wanted to claim they invented something they didn't, or at least to not acknowledge the Xerox prior art that Apple used as a jumping off point. It's like now, with Apple wanting to claim everything about touch.)

 

[dumastudetto]

It's disgusting that Apple has to pay a cent for what Samesung has done.

 

[john.banken]

It's very humble of Apple only to ask for 1/3 IMO

Oh please...

----------

It's disgusting that Apple has to pay a cent for what Samesung has done.

Really? Seriously? Disgusting? Really?

 

[Winni]

Apple keeps saying their lawsuits are "not about the money".

That's like their claims that they don't design products for the money.

The main goal might not be the money, but they sure ask for as much as they can.

If Apple's goal wasn't money, they'd be a non-profit organization.

It never fails to amaze me that some people really believe as much in Apple's marketing phrases as others believe in religious writings.

 

[rechna]

I like the lawyers to win. Samsung should be paid all the mount.

 

[Heltik]

Had permission, and I believe an investment coincided with this.

Where would Apple be if they didn't steal the GUI from Xerox?

----------



Cool story bro!

----------

LOL. Is this post intended to be grossly misinformed?

Please explain how? When Windows was originally released for PC it was a place holder, as Microsoft realised that the GUI was the way forward. Subsequent releases of Windows tended further and further towards Macintosh, exemplified by Windows '95, the boldest and largest launch of Windows to date, which was virtually Macintosh '84...

Whilst companies had invariably bought IBM and not Microsoft in the old days, MS realised where the future was and that they needed to move away from the command line interface. You only need to look at what happens when they licence technologies and DON'T relentlessly copy Apple (i.e. iOS vs Windows Surface) to see what may have happened had they not copied Apple.

----------

Microsoft was already more successful than apple with DOS because they didn't copy apple into the hardware game and licensed their software to be used with computers made by anyone. Microsoft are successful because they created a business model that didn't copy apple.

Also apple and Microsoft copied the GUI from Xerox. Apple just put it on the market first.

Apple had permission to use Xerox's work as a basis. It carried out huge amounts of R&D designing elements such as cascading menus/overlapping windows etc etc, which MS copied directly from Apple.

----------

Really? Just throwing Microsoft into the mix to prove whatever point you are talking about? MiOF (Mind is Officially Blown).

Example of history repeating itself.

----------

Which alternate reality are you speaking of and how do I get there?

And they say Steve Jobs had a "reality distortion field"!