Not for a single invalid patent. It's worthless. Apple took a shot a patenting it. It cost them a minimal amount of money to do so. It was invalidated. Not a big deal. Easily worth the risk.
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.
Ban on Sale of Samsung Galaxy Smartphones in EU Set for October 13th
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not for a single invalid patent. It's worthless. Apple took a shot a patenting it. It cost them a minimal amount of money to do so. It was invalidated. Not a big deal. Easily worth the risk.
This actually makes me interested in the Samsung product, if Apple is so concerned it must actually be pretty good
Worthless NOW, yes. Yesterday, not so much. And like i stated in the post script, isnt Apple spending "millions of dollars in R&D" to come up with these "innovations"? Isnt that the whole reason why Apple "must sue"? :- )
----------
Looks very nice from the movies i've seen the last few days. My GF has been bitching about getting a pad. Perhaps i should just give her a tab and be done with it. :- )
No, it was just as worthless yesterday. Don't you think someone would have done the same homework as Samsung before buying it?
And losing the patent has nothing to do with their R&D investment. They still get to take advantage of the technology.
----------
Seriously? The "I know you are but what am I?" defense?
Apple didn't invent Mac OS X, NeXT did, but NeXT became Apple along with all it's innovations and IP; hence Apple invented it all. The same is for all the patents they acquire. There is a reason corporations buy up IP and the talent that goes along with the buyouts. OS X became the logical next generation of Openstep technologies and a vast array of new Apple technologies with NeXT Engineers now Apple Engineers.
But you somehow think Apple buying a company full of now Apple Engineering talent with all it's touch screen patents is not now Apple's innovations? Those innovations were rudimentary then and have vastly expanded since the acquisition.
If it was worthless prior to today's preliminary rulings, why did Apple include it in the case at all? Is it a normal tactic to knowingly put put a weak patent up in such a case with the threat of invalidation, if so, what is the merit in doing so?
Sigh. If it was just as worthless yesterday, why did Apple file in first place. I rarely meet people who argue against themselves as much as you do.
So can everyone else; i.e. they stand to gain nothing from their R&D (according to popular Mac-rumors reasoning).
Because Samsung violated the patent. It was weak. What else are they going to do with it? Keep it in a box?
It was invalidated. The gamble lost. But what did Apple lose?
They could have fought with a stronger patent in the beginning. It just seems surreal to me that they would do such a thing.
So there was no method in their madness then?
Edit:
Going beyond the patent, their trade dress claims suffered also.
“Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.”
Was that another worthless endeavour?
Apple is really worried because the Galaxy SII is going to be a great phone, 4G and would give the iPhone 5 a good run for it's money. Apple loves competion, as long as there isn't any.
That's not my point. Apple has a patent. They know it's weak. Samsung violates it. They have a choice, let it sit in the box doing nothing or throw it on the pile of patents that they are suing Samsung with. What's the risk if it becomes invalidated? A few hours of a lawyer's time trying to justify it. If they luck into a friendly judge, or Samsung muffs the defense... bonus!
You mean like Apple adding (Microsoft Windows) directional arrows for resizing windows in Lion? What innovations are we talking about exactly.
I think that Apple is likely more concerned that inferior copycat devices will dilute the strong positive public response to the iPad as a result of such inferior devices providing a less positive user experience.
Why does the same crowd that argued against Samsung still argue against Samsung now that the court basically invalidated almost all of Apple's claim except 1 swipe patent ?
Don't they understand the amount of egg they get on their face each time they do things like that ?
Guys, it's simple : In these lawsuit threads, don't assume any side is more right or wrong than the other, the courts will eventually decide who is right and you might end up having been wrong all along, which only hurts your credibility.
Just admit it : Apple's "blatant" copying wasn't so blatant, there were quite a few problems with their claims and the best approach is to wait and see, just like I've been proning all this time while showing you guys the different Galaxy S models from all angles.
Don't they understand the amount of egg they get on their face each time they do things like that ?
Guys, it's simple : In these lawsuit threads, don't assume any side is more right or wrong than the other, the courts will eventually decide who is right and you might end up having been wrong all along, which only hurts your credibility.
Just admit it : Apple's "blatant" copying wasn't so blatant, there were quite a few problems with their claims and the best approach is to wait and see, just like I've been proning all this time while showing you guys the different Galaxy S models from all angles.
My friends iPad always freezes on him, i have a flyer that has never let me down yet. I think the iPad gives the market a bad name, how can you have a tablet with so few options?
Thank God FORD didn't patent the steering wheel! Or did he???
Patents expire 20 years after being granted.
Back to the issue: swiping with your finger is an intuitIve way to switch photos but it is not the only way. Before the iPhone, no one built a device capable of such gestures and apple invented the touch screen finger swipe to switch pictures. Since this a specific idea, and a completely unique one at the time, they were granted a patent. It seems that other manufacturers don't want to think outside the box as apple did in 2007. They simply used a patented technology. That is Illegal. Wether or not the patent office had the right to allow this patent is a hard question to answer, but in 2007 thIngs were much different.
Nevertheless, about 10 years from now apple's innovation and research will be available for everyone to use!
Like I said at the outset, I'm not a UI designer.
Whatever.
Again... Look at the phones on the market pre iPhone and look them now. Tell me that they didn't copy Apple.
Lol...i find it hilarious when people say this. You really believe that a single phone is going to give apple "a run for it's money"? No. The GS2 will sell 5 million in a year...the iPhone will sell 20M in a quarter.
The GS2 is going to be another android phone that gets a few million sales then disappears like every other android phone.
If everyone else is doing all the innovating, why do all of their devices look and operate like Apple's? It seems to me as if Apple is leading and everyone else is following, and Apple is asking for its investment in R & D to be honored by some period of exclusivity with respect to sales of devices it invented.well if apple cannot innovate i guess they will continue to litigate
Of course, some people on this board would prefer for anyone to be allowed to produce devices that look and feel exactly like those that Apple has created, rather than create something more unique. What these people do not realize is that such an approach actually stifles competition and innovation, because it does not force companies to produce and market new ideas, and it eliminates any incentive to spend any time or money researching and developing something new, since it would only waste resources and give no leg up on the competition. So, like Samsung and HTC, instead of bringing us the next great portable consumer computing device, Apple should just wait until HTC or Samsung come up with it, and then copy them.
Oh, wait, that's right, neither of those companies has ever come up with an industry-changing device like the iPod, the iPhone or the iPad. Why? Because copying others is how they have achieved their success.
no it will be the iPhone killer, everything about it is better then the iphone4 and probably better then the 5 too sorry fanboys