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
Samsung makes more money off Apple than they ever could with their own phones. Think they should just drop that business huh? Guess that might be why you are commenting on macrumors and not running Samsung. And iPhone killer? Really? So it's just going to kill the iPhone is it. Wow.
----------
That is what judges do. Not everybody thinks the same. Haven't figured that one out yet have we?
Last edited by a moderator:
Smashing the 'piece of crap broken g5' you have sitting in your room seems more than 'absolutely ridiculous'.
Not saying they're right, nor am I saying they're wrong, but the decisions to file against Samsung were likely made after much discussion by people far smarter than you or I on the subject of patent/IP infringement. Stop pretending you know better than judges and lawyers - let them sort it out.
About the only intelligent thing you could have done with that comment would have been to cite the prior examples. I'm interested..
Not saying they're right, nor am I saying they're wrong, but the decisions to file against Samsung were likely made after much discussion by people far smarter than you or I on the subject of patent/IP infringement. Stop pretending you know better than judges and lawyers - let them sort it out.
About the only intelligent thing you could have done with that comment would have been to cite the prior examples. I'm interested..
Please explain to me then why Apple does absolutely nothing to stop the even more blatant knockoffs (replicas) that can be found in every shop in Indonesia, China, etc. They are churned out and sold by the millions. Or is Samsung just a high profile and therefore easy target?
Oh? And how exactly do you go about pursuing knocks off in china and Indonesia? Just tell them to knock it off? Or else you'll say mean things and cry? Hard enough to pursue these things here let alone in countries that don't give a **** about knock offs.
Consumers have zero morals as evidenced numerous times here ... until you're put in that position were someone infringes on your patent you'll never get it.
If anyone of you Apple bashing nay-sayers ever have a patent you'll do EXACTLY the same thing.
It's sad how things aren't thought through and rationalized with fair play in mind, it's Apple's right to protect their brand. Why all the arm chair judgements, let the courts decide.
----------
Back up your judgements with cold hard facts please.
This is ridiculous. I agree with Jobs' position that Android was stolen, but Jelly Bean and its Siri-like functionality are taking a different direction than iOS and Siri. Google's approach does more locally, making it effecient, whereas apple's is more adaptive, but only because it has serious computing power offsite.
My point is, google has their own unique implementation, and this will not confuse anyone into thinking this is an iPhone.
Let this one go. At this point, even their investors must be thinking "They aren't defending IP anymore, but instead having a pissing match and we are paying for this idiocy."
My point is, google has their own unique implementation, and this will not confuse anyone into thinking this is an iPhone.
Let this one go. At this point, even their investors must be thinking "They aren't defending IP anymore, but instead having a pissing match and we are paying for this idiocy."
It'll be interesting when Apple enter the television market. Let's see if they come up with something totally original. I mean, a TV set with a graphic interface that connects to the internet?...
It is ironic that Apple has been granted an injunction with a patent that is not even from themselves and for a thing that Android had before the iPhone.
----------
And exactly what was stolen?
----------
And exactly what was stolen?
I Dont get how Samsung is wrong here when they Dont even make the software. This isn't about patents and you know it, this is strictly about stopping the competition. There are a slew of android devices that infringe on the same exact thing Apple is suing. But not every device is successful as the nexus, not every device is sold at a premium price off contract through the play store, and not every device is a competitor and as good as Samsung makes android. I've used a lumia 900 for a week and I can tell you that they also infringe, but their market share is like 3% so why bother? They aren't a threat that's why, guarantee you once wp picks up and starts (if ever) becoming a threat you will see apple flex. This is a ****** way to fight back, I figured ios6 would fight back hard but nope jelly bean takes that by more than a mile. Too busy coming up with lame android jokes for siri to repeat that they forgot how to innovate. Its really disappointing cause apple was pretty good, and even though I sold my iPhone I still have my iPad. But honestly I Dont see that lasting long enough, until apple actually goes back to its roots and starts changing things again, pun intended, that's when I'll give a damn. Right now the company has been a huge disappointment on the software and hardware front. Every dog has its day I guess.
Samsung is just the one apple fears the most, in regards to products that compete against theirs .
Exactly, they make android a better experience enough so to sway people from an iPhone. I loved my iPhone until I tried the nexus, and although its lacking on many things, the phone does way more than I could ever do on my iPhone. I really love iOS but its just not on par, that's why I kept my iPad thus far, I simply need to have iOS and I'm deep into their ecosystem (another reason why iOS is better) their apps are beyond amazing.
I'm not taking anyone's side here, but what you're saying is missing the point. Nobody is seriously confusing a Galaxy Nexus product with an iPhone or iPad. They don't look the same the way the Galaxy Tab looked like an iPad, but when these features that Apple invented or patented (I don't know if they did first or didn't - this is based on their own assumption that they did) are implemented in a competitors product, that's a selling point for them. They can now say 'Hey - we make life easy as well, with X, Y, and Z'. I haven't seen a single Android product so far that's had near as much effort and thought put into it's industrial design as Apple applies to their products, so in effect, it's easier to make these products cheaper.
When cheaper products are introduced with the same features that Apple pioneered, it's possible that some folks will go for the cheaper product since 'it's the same anyway'.
I own mobile devices that run iOS (tablet and phone), Android (tablet and phone) and WP7 (phone). I find iOS easiest to use, and want to use it most. I think the design style of ICS is getting quite nice, and wish iOS would follow suit. I also think that Microsoft has tried to do with WP7 is really smart, but ultimately it was too big a risk, and it won't enjoy as much success, however, it's the only other OS that actually attempted to innovate on it's own. There's no denying the extreme similarities between iOS and Android. Microsoft proved it was possible to do otherwise, which is why suits like this can be valid.
Time will tell whether this was worth it for Apple or not, but if they were your inventions, and someone else just stole them, I'm quite sure you'd want to do the same. Apple has the means, so why not?
When cheaper products are introduced with the same features that Apple pioneered, it's possible that some folks will go for the cheaper product since 'it's the same anyway'.
I own mobile devices that run iOS (tablet and phone), Android (tablet and phone) and WP7 (phone). I find iOS easiest to use, and want to use it most. I think the design style of ICS is getting quite nice, and wish iOS would follow suit. I also think that Microsoft has tried to do with WP7 is really smart, but ultimately it was too big a risk, and it won't enjoy as much success, however, it's the only other OS that actually attempted to innovate on it's own. There's no denying the extreme similarities between iOS and Android. Microsoft proved it was possible to do otherwise, which is why suits like this can be valid.
Time will tell whether this was worth it for Apple or not, but if they were your inventions, and someone else just stole them, I'm quite sure you'd want to do the same. Apple has the means, so why not?
As a share holder I question the wisdom of risking $96M to block a phone that is 8 months old. If they lose the case then they lose that money. Though this could be a stepping stone to blocking the GS III in the USA which would be far more significant.
I fully believe that companies should come up with their own innovations. For things pertaining to standards, Apple has promised to donate patents in the past (even recently with nano SIMs -- though not sure what patents they really held, but they made the promise to fend off an accusation of Apple's proposed standard being self-serving). However, most of Apple's patents seem to be non-essential ease-of-use patents that they refuse to license (except with Microsoft and Nokia since they have broad cross-licensing agreements with them).
I think the cross-license deal with Microsoft has made a lot of sense. The fact that Google has not brought much to the table cross-licensing-wise seems odd to me. Apple is hardly a patent behemoth like IBM or Microsoft. Yet they don't seem to need any non-FRAND patents from Google, Motorola, Samsung, or HTC in order to operate. The only one that comes to mind is the Moto patent pertaining to iCoud push email in Germany (and nowhere else).
Anyway, I hope that Apple has a strategy for the GS III if they decide to post the bond. But if they are just going after the Galaxy Nexus then I think that ship has sailed.
I fully believe that companies should come up with their own innovations. For things pertaining to standards, Apple has promised to donate patents in the past (even recently with nano SIMs -- though not sure what patents they really held, but they made the promise to fend off an accusation of Apple's proposed standard being self-serving). However, most of Apple's patents seem to be non-essential ease-of-use patents that they refuse to license (except with Microsoft and Nokia since they have broad cross-licensing agreements with them).
I think the cross-license deal with Microsoft has made a lot of sense. The fact that Google has not brought much to the table cross-licensing-wise seems odd to me. Apple is hardly a patent behemoth like IBM or Microsoft. Yet they don't seem to need any non-FRAND patents from Google, Motorola, Samsung, or HTC in order to operate. The only one that comes to mind is the Moto patent pertaining to iCoud push email in Germany (and nowhere else).
Anyway, I hope that Apple has a strategy for the GS III if they decide to post the bond. But if they are just going after the Galaxy Nexus then I think that ship has sailed.
You forgot to list all the features are not passing done to older devices. Look at iPhone 4, it will not be getting Siri or turn by turn direction in iOS6 even though it has iOS6 upgrade by name.
Personally I don't think Android will surfer much as the Nexus is a device mainly aimed at geeks. The average smartphone buyer walk in to phone shop cares very little about which version Android runs the phone. If Apple managed to get the Galaxy SIII banned, that will be a major impact on Android growth in the US.
In the 5 years that the iPhone has been on sale, how many similar lawsuits have there been against Apple? The odd one here and there granted - mostly outside the US.
That suggests to me that maybe, just maybe, Apple has employed its army of lawyers and engineers over the years to check what patents exist and licence those that they need. Yes the occasional one or two got through but in the main they have seemed quite safe. They clearly knew the risks of not doing so.
In other cases, they will have understood the patents and found ways to implement ideas in a different way that doesn't infringe them. In some cases they may fail, in which case the patent holder will still ask them to licence the relevant technology or threaten a court case.
Some may complain that Apple have copied ideas, but there have been few patent battles that I've heard about regarding these so-called infringements. No one can tell me that with all its success, Apple wouldn't have been sued if they had infringed a patent that someone had taken the trouble to file. So either such things haven't been patented or else Apple has worked around them. There's too much money at stake to assume Google et al have just said - particularly in the current climate - "hey you know what, Apple is a cool company. Let them take all our patented ideas for free. We don't need the money".
I don't begin to claim that I know everything about patent law in the US - or anywhere, Liverpool or Rome*, but the picture of patent battles in the US at least shows that, overall, Apple has done a good job of protecting itself from claims by competitors.
Finally, this isn't anything about stifling competition. Apple licence their technology all the time, as well as paying money to licence other companies' tech. As its not about the look and feel of the devices, Samsung could have licenced this tech if they so wished. Either they stole the idea or couldn't be bothered paying to licence, or they decided that it was worthwhile fighting in the courts to have the patent challenged. One thing is very likely though, it would not have got this far if it was just an honest oversight on Samsungs's part- they would have settled long ago if that had been the case.
* warning may contain random song lyrics.
That suggests to me that maybe, just maybe, Apple has employed its army of lawyers and engineers over the years to check what patents exist and licence those that they need. Yes the occasional one or two got through but in the main they have seemed quite safe. They clearly knew the risks of not doing so.
In other cases, they will have understood the patents and found ways to implement ideas in a different way that doesn't infringe them. In some cases they may fail, in which case the patent holder will still ask them to licence the relevant technology or threaten a court case.
Some may complain that Apple have copied ideas, but there have been few patent battles that I've heard about regarding these so-called infringements. No one can tell me that with all its success, Apple wouldn't have been sued if they had infringed a patent that someone had taken the trouble to file. So either such things haven't been patented or else Apple has worked around them. There's too much money at stake to assume Google et al have just said - particularly in the current climate - "hey you know what, Apple is a cool company. Let them take all our patented ideas for free. We don't need the money".
I don't begin to claim that I know everything about patent law in the US - or anywhere, Liverpool or Rome*, but the picture of patent battles in the US at least shows that, overall, Apple has done a good job of protecting itself from claims by competitors.
Finally, this isn't anything about stifling competition. Apple licence their technology all the time, as well as paying money to licence other companies' tech. As its not about the look and feel of the devices, Samsung could have licenced this tech if they so wished. Either they stole the idea or couldn't be bothered paying to licence, or they decided that it was worthwhile fighting in the courts to have the patent challenged. One thing is very likely though, it would not have got this far if it was just an honest oversight on Samsungs's part- they would have settled long ago if that had been the case.
* warning may contain random song lyrics.
Instant collector value
Could be worth a small fortune as a collectors' item.
In oh, maybe about 50 years or so.
(The phone, not Ice Cream Sandwich. ICS was worthless from day 1.)
Could be worth a small fortune as a collectors' item.
In oh, maybe about 50 years or so.
(The phone, not Ice Cream Sandwich. ICS was worthless from day 1.)
Consider Apple need to post bond almost $1 billion against the Nexus, the cost for the SIII have to be at lest 10 times larger, not sure it will be worth the gamble even with Apple's cash reserve.
$96 million for Galaxy Nexus, not $1 billion
----------
It was not banned for slide to unlock
I forgot you Americans consider 1,000 millions in a billion, I'm still thinking in old school UK system where 100 millions in a billion.