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 Wins Injunction Barring U.S. Sales of Samsung Galaxy Nexus Phone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well not quite. In legalese it means that if someone is using your patents in design and selling it on the market that would cut into Apple's shares... no one in court could ever make an argument that damages are incurred when someone else's product is better. Damages occur if someone is infringing on your patents to get a marketshare that should rightfully be yours.
What? There is no justice, its hypocrisy. Apple has infringed on patents and gotten away with it. The original iPhone copies Samsung but no one cares about that. I have many Apple products but if they keep this crap up, im switching to PC, Windows Surface tablet, and HTC One. I hate Apple as a company with a passion but have always loved their products even though they seem to think they still own your Apple products after you buy them. Stop bullying, innovate, and welcome competition.
Protecting your IP is now bullying? If Apple had no case it would have been dismissed! Stop fooling yourself (trolling?)!
I'm not against any one company defending their invention. What I would like to know however, in this case is it going to make a difference?
What I mean is, let's say Apple wins and Samsung comes up with a different way for the functions to, in the end, do the same thing they do now. Will it have been worth it? In the end the end user doesn't know there's a difference because they didn't lose any functionality or at the most they have to add a tap to complete the function.
For example: Slide to unlock. I didn't read the entire patent but does it also cover tap to unlock? And does it cover slide to unlock in all directions or is it just left to right the way iOS has it implemented? And in the end will it make any difference if Samsung implements a different way to unlock the phone? I don't think it will so I'm not sure it will be worth it. Apple comes out looking like the heavy and no one really wins.
What I mean is, let's say Apple wins and Samsung comes up with a different way for the functions to, in the end, do the same thing they do now. Will it have been worth it? In the end the end user doesn't know there's a difference because they didn't lose any functionality or at the most they have to add a tap to complete the function.
For example: Slide to unlock. I didn't read the entire patent but does it also cover tap to unlock? And does it cover slide to unlock in all directions or is it just left to right the way iOS has it implemented? And in the end will it make any difference if Samsung implements a different way to unlock the phone? I don't think it will so I'm not sure it will be worth it. Apple comes out looking like the heavy and no one really wins.
Its the implementation of the technology that determines infringement. The iPhone was awarded many multiple patents. Does Samsumg have the patents to back up your claim?. Let the court decide who copied who..
----------
Thats the point. If Samsung came out with a different way to do it than the patented iPhone's way, then there would be no patent lawsuit.
It's not about being an expert, what he's saying is that these patents are simply ridicilous, nothing about wether they are legal or not.
So you are basically saying that if you for example create something, then someone takes a look at it and builds a product based on your design and creation and makes a fortune....you are ok with that? Patents are awarded to original designs which are researched thoroughly by the US Patent & Trademark Office, which insure that when someone unfairly infringes on your creations you have proof that you created it and that no one else has the right to profit from it without trying to license the right to.
So in that light, the patent office will not issue a patent request if it finds the design is already patented by someone else. It is not easy to get a design or method patented. The iPhone is heavily patented. Meaning it was rewarded multiple design patents for new and innovative technology. When other companies suspiciously come out with a similar product that looks like it infringes on your patents...you have a right to sue them using the patents that were awarded to you a proof of your original designs.
Last edited:
Final Judge?
You are the ultimate and final judge on what should or should not be patentable...Because?
"Researched thoroughly by the US Patent & Trademark Office" haha yeah right, that's great and all but only in theory, have you actually seen the patents that we are discussing? Because that's crucial to understand what's going on here. Those patents are ridiculous.
No, only the US patent and Trademark Office issues patents. This is done before a product hits the street. If another company puts out a product that looks like they infringed on your patents then the patent holder will take them to court. The court will determine if the other company violated the patent...or original implementation of the design that is patented. i.e.: the iPhone patents.
----------
no matter how ridiculous a patent may seem, the patent office did issue them based on the fact that no other maker has patented the method on record.
Of course, I agree with this. This doesn't change the fact that those patterns are ridiculous, even if they have been registered properly and legally. This stops being a legal problem and stars to be a moral problem. Of course one could say that patenting ridiculous things is a pre-emptive attack to prevent other companies from patenting them - this means then that the patent system is flawed; moreover, Apple uses them as weapons.
lol - it remains to be seen if google is at fault.
Apple is protecting their intellectual property by suing google.
It's not about copying.
It's not about copying.
It's not about copying.
Did I say that enough times?
It's about infringement, which doesn't require copying. It just matters who got the patent first.
This injunction is over the implementation of something that was apparently independently thought up, but for which Apple obtained a patent that in some interpretations covers what Google also did. For that matter, who would think that anyone could conceive of better search methods than Google?
This kind of coincidence usually indicates an obvious invention that should never have gotten a patent. As others have noted, the wording in the claims for this one are pretty non-specific as to the method.
You're exactly right. It won't make that much difference, if any, to the user if a different method is found.
For Apple, it's not so much about "righting a wrong", or even defending IP, like some think. It's a lot about delaying the competition until Apple gets their own new model out for sale. It's like a chess game where patents are pawns that can be sacrificed.
For example, in some overseas cases judges have warned Apple that their slide-to-unlock patent would probably get invalidated at trial. They immediately withdrew it and switched to another. If they really cared, they'd fight for the patent. But that's not its purpose. If it cannot help cause a delaying injunction, it's not important to Apple.
Last edited:
You have to apply for a patent, and if no other patent exists that matches your implementation of design they award you a patent.
----------
It's not about copying.
It's not about copying.
It't not about copying.
Did I say that enough times?
It's about infringement, which doesn't require copying.
This injunction is over the implementation of something that was apparently independently thought up, but for which Apple obtained a patent that in some interpretations covers what Google also did. For that matter, who would think that anyone could conceive of better search methods than Google?
This kind of coincidence usually indicates an obvious invention that should never have gotten a patent.
You're exactly right. It won't make that much difference, if any, to the user if a different method is found.
For that matter, Apple doesn't seem to care if their patents eventually get invalidated or gotten around. They just switch patents and try again.
It's not about "righting a wrong", or even defending IP, like some think. It's a lot about delaying the competition until Apple gets their own new model out for sale.
Got me again, its infringing, infringing, infringing, infringing....lalalalal I am being conditioned to use the word *copy* by being on this forum too long !
----------
It's not about copying.
It's not about copying.
It't not about copying.
Did I say that enough times?
It's about infringement, which doesn't require copying.
This injunction is over the implementation of something that was apparently independently thought up, but for which Apple obtained a patent that in some interpretations covers what Google also did. For that matter, who would think that anyone could conceive of better search methods than Google?
This kind of coincidence usually indicates an obvious invention that should never have gotten a patent.
You're exactly right. It won't make that much difference, if any, to the user if a different method is found.
For that matter, Apple doesn't seem to care if their patents eventually get invalidated or gotten around. They just switch patents and try again.
It's not about "righting a wrong", or even defending IP, like some think. It's a lot about delaying the competition until Apple gets their own new model out for sale.
oops was meant for your quote, I think I'm going to *copy * all this down for later, so that I not *infringe* on my wife's time.
I find it scary that people don't know what they're talking about. Apple has patented implementations of their specific software features; google is ripping them off.
Apple as to defend their patents...and let the courts decide.
So .. to be clear, you are defending the patent granted for hyperlinking phone numbers?
And swipe to unlock?
And the other extremely frivolous patents here?
These types of patents seriously hurt consumers. Every software company has directly or indirectly violated loads of patents - and the idea that it's best to just go and sue each other is an embarrassment to our justice system. Patent reform is really needed - these things should not be happening.
----------
The point is the patents shouldn't have been issued in the first place. Patents should be granted for truly new and innovative things - not slight modifications to basic things that have existed for a dozen years.
Oh really? Tell me then, because you know what you're talking about, which patents have been used in this case? Can you describe them to me please?
well now your talking about patent law reform which has little relevance to the court in this case..
Can you explain to me why you consider the swipe to unlock patent to be "frivolous" ?