Sidebar Sidebar
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

I really hope this mess for Apple results in the same smack down Oracel got which is $0 and having to pay Samsung legal fees.

A lot of thoses are crapents and should never of been granted in the first place.
 
Swordylove said:
"Tap to zoom" is a patent by itself, as stated in the article.

Protecting "Slide to unlock" seems justifiable enough to me. But "tap to zoom"? That's like patenting a key bind. Of course you're going to tap it; it's a touchscreen! Duh!

Also, just because they patented it doesn't make it THIER work (talking common sense here, screw the flawed manmade laws). If someone other people have implemented it first, but Apple's the one who patent it, who's stealing whose work here (if you call that a 'work')? :rolleyes:

Anyone would've implemented it without knowing that kind of stuff has already been patented, because it's ridiculous to have such obvious gesture patented.
Click to expand...

Apple, or Samsung or Moto or RIM - they all patented things that were not obvious at the time they patented them. Just because something today seems obvious because it's become the popular or de-facto solution doesn't mean that the product/tech shouldn't have been patented at a point where it wasn't the obvious solution. I can't say I would have ever thought of tapping to zoom on my first gen iPaq or my Treo phone. In both cases - things like tap to zoom or slide to unlock were anything but obvious. And frankly, suggesting anything obvious today is the way it always should have been is crazy thinking. You seem to be living in a world where the past is what, 3 years ago, maybe 5 at the longest?

If prior art exists and the patent office finds it, then the patent isn't given. If the patent office doesn't find something that clearly is prior art, then it's up to someone else to point that out and attempt to have the patent pulled.
 
Heres something that strikes me odd. And why Apple is receiving a lot of negativity over the lawsuits.

Apple violates Samsung Patent. Samsung agrees to go into licencing agreement. Apple continues selling product. Both Companies make millions.

Samsung violates (allegedly, still in most courts) Apple Patents. Apple refuses to licence any patents. Asks for injunctions and all out bans on All samsung products and claims Samsung is directly responsible for billions in lost sales, then accuses samsung of charging them too much for use of Samsungs Patents.


:eek:

Apple wonders why this "thermonuclear war" is costing them billions? Maybe it's their own damn fault. Try entering negotiations for licencing and you'd be amazed how much faster innovation happens when you're not busy spending millions on lawsuits and cumbersome ways of developing new tech's without stepping on eachothers patents.
 
schmidm77 said:
Wrong. Take an example the idea of using a metal bit to drill a hole in a piece of wood.
Click to expand...

Hum, I'm wrong saying code is copyrighted, and you prove it using an example of a physical product. Sorry, your analogy doesn't apply. Software patents are not like patents for physical goods, and software is protected by copyright, which doesn't cover "metal bits to drill a hole in a piece of wood".

Copyright covers code/implementation in software.
 
The ugly truth is that not even Steve Jobs himself can say with ANY certainty what the mobile phone market would look like now without Apple. It's all conjecture and a reality that can never take place or be proven/dis proven.

Unless time travel becomes possible.

And Steve was notorious for considering everyone but him "lazy." When he uses the word - it becomes meaningless.

ChrisTX said:
Steve Jobs said it best..."Smartphones now, aren't so smart, and they're not so easy to use." Apple took an industry in which no one but business people had a smartphone, and put a smartphone into the hands of MILLIONS of people that never would have used one otherwise. Apple revolutionized the way we look at mobile today, and forever. If Apples offerings with the iPhone weren't so significant, then Google, and Microsoft would be doing something radically different right now, and they're not. The Blackberries, Palms, Nokias, etc...of yore should have had Apple patented core functionality if it was so insignificant but they like many major corporations got lazy, and allowed for Apple to come in and take over. :cool:
Click to expand...
 
SvenSvenson said:
So if YOU came up with a brilliant but simple idea, that no-one else had thought of, abd used it to create a device or gadget that could be worth millions, you wouldn't object if someone took that idea, implemented it in a different way and started to compete?
Click to expand...

In all likelihood the actual person that invented the technology in these patents got a couple thousand bucks and a plaque. So let's not get too carried away about the morality of a companies objections.
 
As a fan of high quality products, I understand the intrinsic desire to defend Apple at almost every turn, but I disagree with why people are defending this back and forth waste of the legal system here.

Hypothetically, Apple could invite Samsung to completely clone the design, look, feel, software, etc of an iPhone and Samsung would still not be able to perfectly duplicate the quality and Apple's implementation would still be noticeably superior.

Apple does not need a government enforced monopoly to be the market leader. This is bad for the software industry and a waste of resources.

I understand the defensive use of IP, but I am against these agressive actions.
 
hexx said:
there you explained it to yourself - SEP patents should be granted on Fair Reasonable and Non-discriminatory bases. Apple's patent isn't SEP so they can charge as much as they want. I know how it sounds but that's how it is.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why there is any debate about the SEP patents - surely these are licensed already under standard rates.

Is this Apple suit just a tactic to reduce SEP license costs?
 
LordVic said:
Heres something that strikes me odd. And why Apple is receiving a lot of negativity over the lawsuits.

Apple violates Samsung Patent. Samsung agrees to go into licencing agreement. Apple continues selling product. Both Companies make millions.

Samsung violates (allegedly, still in most courts) Apple Patents. Apple refuses to licence any patents. Asks for injunctions and all out bans on All samsung products and claims Samsung is directly responsible for billions in lost sales, then accuses samsung of charging them too much for use of Samsungs Patents.


:eek:

Apple wonders why this "thermonuclear war" is costing them billions? Maybe it's their own damn fault. Try entering negotiations for licencing and you'd be amazed how much faster innovation happens when you're not busy spending millions on lawsuits and cumbersome ways of developing new tech's without stepping on eachothers patents.
Click to expand...

I think, but could be wrong here, that at least one issue Apple has with Samsung, in relation to both their wanting Samsung to stop (allegedly) copying them and their not signing some FRAND agreement for use of Samsung product/technology is due to the fact that Apple is a customer of Samsung.

They're buying products from Samsung (billions worth), which one would think would have both a hard cost for the products in question and a soft cost for the rights to use said product or technology (IP) owned by Samsung. And because they were (and probably still are) buying lots of things from Samsung, that it's very likely that Samsung has seen future Apple products (iPhone/iPad) that may just have made their way to the other side of the fence (from Samsung as supplier to Samsung as competitor). Common sense tells me it's very likely that Samsung has used what it learned from Apple in a way that Apple doesn't benefit from. Which is not the same as Apple using products/technology that it purchased from Samsung, which Apple paid for. If Apple has in fact stolen/copied technology from Samsung, or anyone for that matter, I'm all for Apple having to pay up.
 
TwinMonkeys said:
Hypothetically, Apple could invite Samsung to completely clone the design, look, feel, software, etc of an iPhone and Samsung would still not be able to perfectly duplicate the quality and Apple's implementation would still be noticeably superior.
Click to expand...

Given that Apple doesn't actually manufacture the machines, a blatant Samsung copy, with the same suppliers and manufacturers would be EXACTLY the same as Apple's implementation.
 
Zunjine said:
Yeah - because wanting people to not rip off your designs is pathetic. Put yourself in the shoes of the risk taking companies who spend millions on R&D to find the right solution and then watch as others copy them - how would you react?
Click to expand...

You would have to invent harder I guess... instead of wasting money and time in patent war.
 
pacalis said:
In all likelihood the actual person that invented the technology in these patents got a couple thousand bucks and a plaque. So let's not get too carried away about the morality of a companies objections.
Click to expand...

I cannot agree more.
 
hexx said:
there you explained it to yourself - SEP patents should be granted on Fair Reasonable and Non-discriminatory bases. Apple's patent isn't SEP so they can charge as much as they want. I know how it sounds but that's how it is.
Click to expand...

And $0.005 per unit is a Fair Reasonable and Non discriminatory price?
 
Tigger11 said:
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.
Click to expand...

With the Apple patents there are no parts, only code.

So, using your logic, reasonable royalty for Apple patents should be $0.00.
 
I am considering to patent "using finger to tap cellphone" so that everyone will be screwed. :D
 
hkenneth said:
I am considering to patent "using finger to tap cellphone" so that everyone will be screwed. :D
Click to expand...

You'll be infringing my "finger to tap device" claim.

I've also got another 7 years left on "a process by which a thumb is used to grasp, move or otherwise manipulate object"
 
Sensation said:
My old Windows Phone 5 phone let you tap on things to zoom in :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes, there was at least one document/web browser (Picsel ?) that allowed tap-to-zoom back then, and probably others. That's not what Apple patented.

At first glance, it looks like Apple got a patent on the (obvious) next step: tapping a second area after already zooming in on the first area, and recentering on that second area.

Who even thinks of trying to patent stuff like this? It's going to lead to a few major companies spending all their spare time thinking up patent applications for offensive and defensive purposes, while users lose out due to lack of available common gestures.

Worse, this war started by Apple has enormous potential to backfire and really cause trouble. As I mentioned previously, a major company other than Apple has an application in for fingertip scrolling. Imagine if they get that patent and no one, including Apple, can continue to use flick scrolling. We could all be back to trackballs and cursor keys or large scrollbars.

Software patents either need to be gotten rid of (as other countries did), or restricted to a year or two at most.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back