Apple Seeking $2.5 Billion from Samsung in U.S. Patent and Design Infringement Trial

[schmidm77]

We can thank Amazon for must of this current nonsense because of the infamous "one-click" patent.

"Oh gee, let's do a quick SQL query for customers' CC info, just like we and everybody already does for mailing addresses, and patent it as some new invention."

 

[Zunjine]

SCREW these sue happy loser companies. Let them compete on merit like Capitalism meant them to

Capitalism doesn't work without property rights.

 

[Hakone]

I guess this is what they meant by 'thermonuclear war'

 

[Tones2]

Amazing. Just amazing. Such utter dribble and ahistorical nonsense.

Yes, I was thinking EXACTLY the same about YOUR post.

 

[gnasher729]

Wouldn't grandma be smart enough to know that when the box doesn't actually say the words "iPad" to keep going until the store clerk handed her an actually iPad? I work retail and when someone asks for a particular product they leave with that product. If they ask for suggestions, or seem interested in something else, it might be a different story but for the most part they tend to know what they are leaving my store with. Not disagreeing with you but it seems ridiculous to me that people can't tell the difference between the words iPad on a box, vs. Galaxt Tab, Asus Transformer, or the name of some lesser known tablet.

So you work retail. And if someone comes and asks for an iPad, and your store doesn't sell them, what does your boss say if you tell the prospective customer "we don't sell iPads, try at Apple" instead of showing them the Samsung tablets that are collecting dust?

The point isn't whether people can distinguish between the words. This is about design trademarks, and company names and company logos are _expressly_ not part of the design trademark. So a tablet that looks exactly like an iPad _except for a big sticker "this is not an Apple iPad"_ would be infringing on Apple's design trademark. This is about people who go by the looks of the item, and not by the name.

SCREW these sue happy loser companies. Let them compete on merit like Capitalism meant them to, not suing like pissy little lawyers

You mean "SCREW these copycat loser companies. Let them compete on merit like Capitalism meant them to, not copying other's hard work"

 

[Zunjine]

Yes, I was thinking EXACTLY the same about YOUR post.

Which one? Or are you just trolling?

Also - seeing as how I've made no ahistorical comments, I can only assume you don't know what ahistorical means.

EDIT: Actually, don't worry. I've just had a look at your post history and you clearly are just trolling.

 

[Swordylove]

I see. Because wanting to benefit from your own work is 'unreasonable'.

Let's put it another way, how would you feel if your boss sent your paycheck to me instead? After all, you surely wouldn't be so unreasonable as to expect YOU to benefit from your work, would you?

If they had invented the iPhone (or iPad) then THEY WOULD HAVE invented the iPhone (or iPad). LOL

I was using my PocketPC Treo and Jornada, and looking at an HP NotePad with a swivel mount when these devices debuted. That was where the major PC and Smartphone makers were heading.

Apple changed all that. So yes, they should own the rights to that, especially when they properly patented it.

I'm specifically pointing at the "tap to zoom" patent. iPhone and iPad were great innovations and Apple has every right to protect them from copycats.

 

[KdParker]

Why should tap to zoom be a standard?

Just because it's the best way to do something doesn't mean it should be given away for free. Something being popular, similarly, doesn't make it suddenly a defacto standard in terms of patents and why should it? That would create a perverse incentive to try to make sure your ideas aren't too good and don't get too popular.

How long is the patent on software innovations?

 

[Zunjine]

How long is the patent on software innovations?

I don't know. Seems to me that they patent length should vary depending on the item in question.

 

[ristlin]

I guess this is what they meant by 'thermonuclear war'

More like scuffle in the back alley.

 

[Zunjine]

I'm specifically pointing at the "tap to zoom" patent. iPhone and iPad were great innovations and Apple has every right to protect them from copycats.

The iPhone and the iPad are the sum of the parts of small things like tap to zoom. Saying that someone should be able to protect the whole but not the parts doesn't make sense to me.

 

[hamlin]

Why would you guys want them to sue everyone that "copies" their products and make it better? That is a benefit to us. Apple is ruining the technology world with their patents. No one can innovate.

This website and your comments just prove that Apple is the best marketing company of all time. They can make you believe that buying out of date technology at a high price is a good thing.

Example:

Iphone 3gs $375 on apple site
galaxy nexus $350.

Don't even bother arguing that the 3gs is better because it isn't.

 

[Tigger11]

Figures pulled straight from the butt of an Apple lawyer.

It looks a bit like ours $24, has a bouncy effect $2.02. Your essential patent $0.005, Apple smacking of desperation $priceless!

Apple is basing the value of the essential patent based on the value of the part that uses the patent (less then $1), Samsung thinks the patent should be based on the total value of the device the part is put into (as does Motorola). They believe that you should pay more for a patent based on whether its in a 16 GB Ipad 2 ($399) vs a top of the line 64GB cellular new Ipad ($829), I disagree with that concept, so I'm ok with Apple fighting it.

 

[Zunjine]

Why would you guys want them to sue everyone that "copies" their products and make it better? That is a benefit to us. Apple is ruining the technology world with their patents. No one can innovate.
QUOTE]

Try to remember what phones were like before the iPhone and then come back and tell me you still think Apple's making technology worse.

 

[ristlin]

I guess this is what they meant by 'thermonuclear war'

double post

 

[ChrisTX]

So you work retail. And if someone comes and asks for an iPad, and your store doesn't sell them, what does your boss say if you tell the prospective customer "we don't sell iPads, try at Apple" instead of showing them the Samsung tablets that are collecting dust?

The point isn't whether people can distinguish between the words. This is about design trademarks, and company names and company logos are _expressly_ not part of the design trademark. So a tablet that looks exactly like an iPad _except for a big sticker "this is not an Apple iPad"_ would be infringing on Apple's design trademark. This is about people who go by the looks of the item, and not by the name.

I'm not dishonest and I would hope others would follow suit as well, but if someone asked me for an iPad and all we sold were Samsung tabs, I would let them know that they weren't buying an iPad but of course but proceed to try ansd make the sale. That's what any good salesman would do. It's not being dishonest at all if you inform the consumer what product they are purchasing before they purchase it.

 

[samcraig]

So in short - Apple is more concerned with how something looks than the actual technology patents. Got it.

 

[Prodo123]

Give it a damn rest already with the patent trolling on both sides.

 

[Leaping Tortois]

I'm curious. I'm not sure what patents are actually involved, but does anyone actually think that someone would buy a galaxy smartphone for tap to zoom? I bought my Galaxy S2 for the SAMOLED+ screen, Widgets and the notification center (which I didn't know was in the upcoming iOS but we all know apple ripped it from google). I don't give a rat's a** if it has tap to zoom, or anything like that.

I think that for the $500mil in lost profits apple would have to prove that people bought the phones and tablets for the specific features that they're talking about. Hard to do. As for the other 2bil...

 

[AppleFan1984]

I can. Grandma wants a Christmas present for her granddaughter who wants an iPad. She saw on a website what they look like. She's never, ever heard of Apple. Apples are something that grows on trees to her. She goes to the store and says "I want an iPad". Salesman says "I've got just the right thing for you". And since Samsung is a well known name, it wouldn't occur to her that Samsung isn't actually the maker of iPads.

And then there are plenty of people who, for whatever reason, want to buy something that at least looks like an iPad.

Then Apple should sue resellers who direct iPad requests to competing products.

Do you know anyone who puts a "band-aid" on a cut, or when you want an answer they suggest you "google" it?

That brands become generic with success does not in itself mean that all other brands have no value.

And in Samsung's case, that's especially true, for the most ironic of reasons: with Apple having globally positioned Samsung as the company to beat, Samsung sales are skyrocketing.

 

[Ryan John]

Apple is basing the value of the essential patent based on the value of the part that uses the patent (less then $1), Samsung thinks the patent should be based on the total value of the device the part is put into (as does Motorola). They believe that you should pay more for a patent based on whether its in a 16 GB Ipad 2 ($399) vs a top of the line 64GB cellular new Ipad ($829), I disagree with that concept, so I'm ok with Apple fighting it.

OK, so why are Apple applying one rule for their grievances and a totally different rule when determining the cost of infringing on a competitors product. Justify to me how a bouncy graphic with purely visual effect, has a greater potential value than a 3G technology essential for your hardware to operate.

 

[macsmurf]

When you become an inventor, creator, or engineer you will grasp the concept of Intellectual Property and ownership.

And yet an overwhelming majority of software developers hate software patents. Why do you think that is?

 

[samcraig]

OK, so why are Apple applying one rule for their grievances and a totally different rule when determining the cost of infringing on a competitors product. Justify to me how a bouncy graphic with purely visual effect, has a greater potential value than a 3G technology essential for your hardware to operate.

Because Apple prides themselves on design. The tech is just a side note

 

[Rennir]

So when Apple is forced to take off the LTE label on the new iPad, and when Apple gets sued because of Siri, it's the consumers damn fault for being absolute idiots and not researching enough about the product beforehand, making them entitled jerks. But if a consumer somehow mistakes a Galaxy tab for the new iPad it's Samsung's fault now?

 

[Twixt]

This is not cool AAPL...
Every giant has to fall and disappear one day, what you think could increase your life expectation might trigger a sooner end