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 Seeking $2.5 Billion from Samsung in U.S. Patent and Design Infringement Trial
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know how you set up your Treo, but others of us had WinMo phones with all the above app types plus cool ones like Google Maps, Slingplayer and VoIP. We also usually had 3G and GPS. We also installed third party browsers like Netfront or Picsel so we didn't have to look at mobile sites all the time.
In my case, I was using industrial handhelds and phones with WinCE and IE 4.0+ which was really nice.
No sir, it simply means that some of us have more experience in the field. I'm sure you likewise have expertise in some field where things are obvious to you, that would not be to others.
How come no other company did the obvious?!
A lot were trying to, but it took an Apple to make it popular.
What the mass consumer thinks is obvious or not is meaningless, especially for patents where the criterion is that it should not be an obvious next step to someone experienced in the art at question.
The point is, a lot of this stuff is obvious to those of us who work with touch all the time. (In my case, for decades.)
Let's see. Prior to the iPhone coming out, I'd also invented large finger friendly buttons, flick scrolling, popup context sensitive menus and keyboards from the bottom, swipe gestures, and almost every other common UI feature that iOS uses.
No doubt many others in my position have done the same. I'm sure we all thought we were brilliant, but Apple had the money, time and desire to try to patent all the little things they could away with. Worse, they tried to grab some big things that all of us had done, like their attempt to patent rotating a virtual knob onscreen. It is outrageous that they even tried.
(The same goes for their attempt to grab "Multi-Touch" as a trademark.)
Sorry, that's a ridiculous question. Everyone would. This is already historical fact.
We didn't even have software patents in the US until relatively recently, and many other countries don't allow them at all.
In the past, we relied on copyright, trademark and trade dress. This was true back when Apple got started, and true when they made the OS and GUI for the Lisa and Mac.
Very few software makers today patent anything either. Apparently you've also forgotten about the hundreds of thousands of unpatented mobile apps.
Samsung and others spent billions over many years to create the very world network, chipsets and customer base without which the iPhone could not exist.
None of them and both of them?
That's like some zen koan stuff right there :claps one hand:
Don't put words in my mouth! Never have I said, or assumed, that Apple "actually invented something that required copious amounts of time, effort and money to create". I gave two hypothetical example of two entrepreneurs. One of which, Edison, which is a classic example of the perspiration that is sometimes required for innovation success.
Since you don't quite understand the patent system, here's a common fact.
Most patents ARE "extension to already established methods".
Those that practice licensing are very familiar that the most profitable ideas are alterations of already existing ideas. The thin line is drawn where the patent is a cheap copy or a genuine idea, even if it's a small alteration.
----------
How can you justify that statement?
I'd love to continue to talk patents and economics with you all day, but not when your going on the offensive with me personally with tasteless remarks.
Here's a factoid for you:
Most software patents ARE legally questionable.
Every single Apple patent is designed to be vague, ambiguous, and leave lots of wiggle room for interpretation. Then Apple uses these patents to sue the competition. This is wrong.
Why is the act of sliding an onscreen control to unlock the phone patentable? It's not specific and narrowed down, it can be broadly applied to anything, why is it patentable? And why is it acceptable to use such overly broad patents to do only one thing: stifle competition?
Take off your blinders, Apple fanboy.
---------
Ever looked at the costs of building and operating a chip foundry, as well as keeping that foundry up to date with the latest processes? No? Then keep your mouth shut.
----------
Hello Tony Swash / testerguy!
You don't want to keep going because you know you have already lost.
Over the 8 some odd years as a reader to almost four as a commentator, I've watched MacRumors frontpage news transition from Apple hardware innovations and exciting OS X news to daily updates on multi-billion dollar patent lawsuits and thorough details on Apple's billion dollar cash flow.
Times change, but sometimes not always for the better.
Times change, but sometimes not always for the better.
Here's a quick contradiction.
If you want to say that the invisible hand of laissez faire economy is better for society and drives innovation (and I might agree with that, if you knew your new tech wasn't safe, you might continue to innovate to stay ahead of everyone else), what apple is doing is completely opposite of the ideal that Smith talked about.
What apple is doing is using the "visible hand" of the government controlled barriers to competition by abusing the patent system to stifle competition, thus allowing Apple to innovate slower (or not innovate at all if there was no competition).
ON the flip side, ti's also been shown that without barriers in place, completely free economies will almost always amass the wealth amongst the few while sacrificing the good for society in return of profit and monopolies. We couldd argue for the rest of our lives which "ideal" is best, but any true ideology without compromise is never whats 'best'
If you want to say that the invisible hand of laissez faire economy is better for society and drives innovation (and I might agree with that, if you knew your new tech wasn't safe, you might continue to innovate to stay ahead of everyone else), what apple is doing is completely opposite of the ideal that Smith talked about.
What apple is doing is using the "visible hand" of the government controlled barriers to competition by abusing the patent system to stifle competition, thus allowing Apple to innovate slower (or not innovate at all if there was no competition).
ON the flip side, ti's also been shown that without barriers in place, completely free economies will almost always amass the wealth amongst the few while sacrificing the good for society in return of profit and monopolies. We couldd argue for the rest of our lives which "ideal" is best, but any true ideology without compromise is never whats 'best'
It's funny since you're the only one making the accusations. "APPLE DID THIS, AND APPLE DOES THAT". "YOUR A FANBOY" "YOU LOSE" We really don't want to know how insecure you are. I never said anything bad or negative towards Samsung other than a business perspective in response to someone saying that Samsung should drop Apples contract. Who really has the blinders on?
While the big boys talk, take a look at this:
Heres the US Patent Office's report on total number of patents filed. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/all_tech.htm... Do a search for APPLE, read the number at the far right of the table, then, just for giggles, search for SAMSUNG and realize there's a ORDER OF MAGNITUDE DIFFERENCE.
If glancing at that information (which took maybe 10 seconds of Googling to find) is too tough for you, perhaps you may be interested in something more your speed; like a coloring book.
Last edited:
And exactly how many of those patents filed by Apple have any legal basis? None. How many of those patents will end up being used in court by Apple? Most of them. B-b-b-b-b-b-but "look how many patents filed by Apple vs how many filed by my supplier/competitor/copycat OMG!" What a joke.
You're losing, so you're going to shut your ears and keep saying "I DON'T CARE, I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!" in the hope that someone will believe you. Take off your blinders, Apple fanboy.
Thats the thing that should be one of the most shocking in this situation. I'dnever claim that apple holds the most patents. Samsung is a much bigger company believe it or not, and in hundreds of more fields than Apple.
The question is. Who's been filing the most suits?
Samsung and other companies are more likely to enter into agreements with each other over licensing and FRAND. Apple on the other hand, while still playing entirely in the rules isn't playing the same game.
What typically happens for the majority of competiting patents (at least historically), the companies would get together and share patents with each other. This evens the playing field for a while, and the companies then go use these existing technologies as a base, in which evolution can be applied.
Apple isn't playing that way. Apple by holding their patents and suing everyone sets a barrier to innovation. instead of everyone having access to try and evolve tech, only apple will.
Far Flung analogy time!
Lets compare it to the invention of the wheel. Lets say that Mr Frankfurter (hmm hotdog) invented the Wheel. Apple comes along, gives Mr F a rock and says "thank you for this revolutionary invention, it is now ours".
Meanwhile the world and everyone else is trying to think "how can we make a device to carry rocks over a long distance without having to lug them around ourselves".
So these new companies see this wheel. They say "hey, thats amazing, we can use that wheel, attach it to this box with spokes, and we have a cart to haul our rocks!"
So sure enough, these companies "steal" the idea of the wheel, and put it in place and life is better for everyone.
no No! we were going to sell you wheels for your garden! says apple. You can't use it for that! it's OUR invention! you can no longer use the wheel at all!
"but we'll pay you for use of your wheel in our wheelbarrow!"
"no, its our wheel! you can't use it!"
So without the wheel, the wheelbarrow never gets to be made, it never evolves into the carriage, then the car...
I'd invite you to do a bit of research and confirm that essentially ANY AND EVERY company does exactly the same thing - patent an idea, work it, release it if it is worthy of release, and has the RIGHT protect it. This isn't a new concept, but because it's Apple, you feel a duty to crap on it? Filing a lawsuit to protect intellectual property and right a perceived wrong (note, I use the word "perceived", as in many instances I agree that Apple's patents are far too broad). Which are you more mad at, Apple? Or the fact the Patent Office is allowing the approval vague software patents? (which I will go out on a limb to say Apple isn't the only company using vague patents in legal battles)
You (perhaps the royal you, and not you specifically) hate Apple so much, you're willing to run with such ridiculous baseless justifications. It's just absurd to me, though, and it incites me to anger. That's when I get all sex-crazed and `tard strong.
Last edited:
What research?
One, I didn't start the argument by replying to your posts.
Two, Apple is filing all of these patents to PREVENT the competition from doing anything. Oh if someone wants to do it? They gotta pay Apple in perpetuity.
Samsung licenses their patents to others. Apple doesn't want to license theirs, instead it uses their patents to kill competition. What new concept? You're BSing.
Kodak had to file for bankruptcy, yet Apple felt it should be given preferential treatment because it wanted the Rochester, NY company to pay its ransoms to Cupertino before any bankruptcy proceeding can take place. Dude, Kodak is bankrupt, why do you think it is right to ****block legal proceedings just because you're scared to not earn a dollar per dollar invested in QuickTake?
Three, you think you can simply back away from an argument - which you started first! - while calling me all sorts of nonsense just because I called you out for what you were, an Apple fanboy? No kid. This isn't over yet, Amacfa - it's not over until you admit defeat, end of story. Don't like it? Then don't start one in the first place.
edit:
What ridiculous baseless justifications? You couldn't argue my counterpoints at all, how are they ridiculous and baseless?
Here's a box of Samsung tissue for you.
Last edited:
The argument that Apple, in not licensing it's patents (forget about whether you consider them valid patents in the first place because that's not Apple's issue, but the patent system's issue) is stifling competition suggests to me that what Apple patented is the only way to do something. Is that correct? Did they really get such an incredible thing created and patented that there is just no possible way to innovate beyond what Apple has protected?
What Apple has done / is doing, should in effect be forcing other companies to innovate. If you forget about "how things have been done in the past" - sharing (meant as selling) technology to your competitors doesn't make this the best way to do things. Or the only way to do things. Or the wrong way to do things.
In the case of the wheel example - perhaps what those people trying to compete with Apple's now owned invention of the wheel should have been working towards is a way to move rocks without a wheel. People focused too much attention on one particular technology that they forget that there are always other ways to do things - often times better than the so called best product to date.
I just don't believe that Apple's figured out the holy grail of tech regardless of what their patents are. Is the iPhone a great product or the iPad or MacBook Air? Sure, but that doesn't mean it ends there. The idea that Apple will stop innovating because they control the market is the same argument that was made about Wal-Mart and their "low prices". Do you remember hearing, if we let Wal-Mart go uncontrolled in the market (any market) they'll force competitors out of business then raise prices because they won't have any competition. Last I checked, Wal-Mart still has low prices for comparable products and they still have competition.
I'd argue that it's the competitors of Apple who are not innovating that have the most to worry about.
Wrong answer - in the real world, the fight isn't over until you are destroyed.I am defeated, you have won this one. Until next time.
That is not an admission of defeat.
Wonder if they're going to use their sudden drop off in sales in Q3 to claim Samsung's infringement caused them to sell 35% less units :
Samsung announces their results for their Q2 the 27th, I guess we'll know by then if the rumors are true :
Samsung smartphone sales smashed Apple in Q2 according to estimates
Of course, that predicted 30 million iPhones, 4 million more than what Apple sold. Did Samsung manage to double Apple's smartphone sales ? That would more than explain Apple's ferocious attacks in the court rooms in the last years. Did they basically see this coming, Samsung rising to the top spot, taking it away from Nokia ?