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 Calls in Experts to Explain Why Samsung Owes $2B in Damages
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Neonode N1m did indeed have a swipe-to-unlock feature but it was implemented in a completely different way--swipe the bottom of the screen. Patents protect specific implementations on specific classes of products. It doesn't mean Apple has to be the first with the idea, just their own implementation of it.
If they stand by idly while competitors mimic their products nearly exactly and then sell those knock-offs at a lower price, that would be catastrophic to their sales. It's easy for you to say what you said because you don't own a company being affected by that very problem. Now try wearing Apple's shoes and you would see things differently. I guarantee.
What prior art? Show me an example that is exactly like Apple's implementation that existed prior to the iPhone. People keep talking about it but I haven't seen an example yet.
Its more about that Apple want money for a patient that they say they invented, when time and time again they have been proven not to have invented them at all.
Slide to unlock, Magnetic power connector, Multi touch gesture etc.... blah blah blah....
This is classic
This is the reason the Founding Fathers put the patent monopoly in the constitution. If you want more real value to get to market, you have to encourage companies to invest in invention, not copying. So, if you want to put something out, you make up your own way of doing it, or license it. If you bring out something as new as an iPhone, and major parts of the temporary monopoly are infringed and there is no penalty, why make something new? I think a lot has changed in the intervening 240 years. The terms of the monopoly could be shorter. They might be more exacting about what is required. A patent probably should be something you can't just buy and sit on, as a way or making easy legal fees. If you don't produce something for the market, the patent is unenforceable. You lose it. In the network world, a lot of things have to be essential patents, where you have to settle for a little from everybody.
You'll notice, Windows Phone has no infringement. They did it their way.
This is the reason the Founding Fathers put the patent monopoly in the constitution. If you want more real value to get to market, you have to encourage companies to invest in invention, not copying. So, if you want to put something out, you make up your own way of doing it, or license it. If you bring out something as new as an iPhone, and major parts of the temporary monopoly are infringed and there is no penalty, why make something new? I think a lot has changed in the intervening 240 years. The terms of the monopoly could be shorter. They might be more exacting about what is required. A patent probably should be something you can't just buy and sit on, as a way or making easy legal fees. If you don't produce something for the market, the patent is unenforceable. You lose it. In the network world, a lot of things have to be essential patents, where you have to settle for a little from everybody.
You'll notice, Windows Phone has no infringement. They did it their way.
Last edited:
"Good artists copy, great artists steal"
Yep, and shameless crooks take everything without paying, and deny it, point blank.
Yep, and shameless crooks take everything without paying, and deny it, point blank.
Wrong! To unlock the Neonode N1m you swipe across the bottom of the screen from LEFT TO RIGHT, sound familiar? It is exactly the same as the iPhone. Go and watch the video I posted on the first page, well the link to it.
And considering Apple has already lost court cases against it's competitors on the whole Slide To Unlock patent in other countries, because it pre-existed in the Neonode, I think it's a pretty valid point the American court should consider.
----------
Perfect example of 'Irony' right there.
A much misused word; please clarify.
----------
You want us to answer that, seriously?
LOL... I think not.
[edit]
I can tell you why people choose iPhone over Samsung though...
Last edited:
Not really, Windows Phone has a patent cross licensing arrangement with Apple.
Which is in Apple's interest, since Microsoft owns a great many patents that would otherwise make the iPhone impossible.
I don't think this evidence is particularly compelling, simply because the valuations of $102 per feature seem implausible, and suggest that the recipients would have valued a small subset of features at considerably more than the retail price of any phone in the market. This would therefore suggest that those people had poor judgement, not that such a value of infringement had occurred.
I read your comment as:
You quoted how Apple brag about how they copy and steal, then posted how Samsung steals and copies but are scum for doing so. Irony.
Or did you mean it in another way and I mis-read your comment
I read your comment as:
You quoted how Apple brag about how they copy and steal, then posted how Samsung steals and copies but are scum for doing so. Irony.
Or did you mean it in another way and I mis-read your comment
Sorry man, I think you're reading too much into it, and have subsequently lost me. Please don't re-explain, my head hurts
Another way of putting it would be, just because you steal doesn't make you an artist.
Another way of putting it would be, just because you steal doesn't make you an artist.
haha, well that's true in the case of Samsung, it is no artist, then again the Note 1 and 2 were pretty good, the Note 3 obviously having the stupid fake leather back???
But no, I'll take my white Nexus 5 over any Samsung design anyday.
Another way of putting it would be, just because you steal doesn't make you an artist.
Brilliant!
In other words - the MIT guy arrived at 2B completely on conjecture. "estimated" and "reasonable."
And in really -who hear values any one of those individual functions between $32-102 each.
Put another way - how many here would do an OS in-app purchase to have any of those functions.
Look - I'm not saying Apple isn't entitled to damages if Samsung is found guilty. But this 2B as it was accounted for seems, to me, like major B.S. in how it was arrived at.
And in really -who hear values any one of those individual functions between $32-102 each.
Put another way - how many here would do an OS in-app purchase to have any of those functions.
Look - I'm not saying Apple isn't entitled to damages if Samsung is found guilty. But this 2B as it was accounted for seems, to me, like major B.S. in how it was arrived at.
Yeah - I don't understand your point why one is chosen over the other from your example. Care to spell it out?
----------
I don't have to. I have enough faith in the system that the judge can see through crap like that.
I can tell you what I don't care to do; engage in debates with someone who's trying to get a negative reaction so they can start a row. If you can't work it out, keep typing and ignore it.
I would if I lived near it! And then would most likely promptly get arrested haha!
I'd like to shake the hands of all the lawyers on BOTH sides as they have been masterfully milking the crap out of both companies for their legal fees. This must be their day jobs by now?
As in working on cases exclusively for Apple or Samsung.
I see. In other words, you can't explain it? Perhaps you were trying to be funny or clever? I don't know. It was a legitimate question. Based on the images you presented - what point are you proving?
I don't take to your presumptuous and rather self-assured tone. Please don't read anything into this, but instead, save us both a lot of time and bother, and try to work it out without me needing to explain the rather obvious.
Thanks
Looks like slide to unlock to me. What do you think?
http://www.dailytech.com/Analysis+A...nvalid+or+Should+be+Narrowed/article24035.htm