Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Jury Finds Both Apple and Samsung Guilty of Patent Infringement, Samsung to Pay $119.6 Million, Apple to Pay $158,400

Michael Goff said:
If Apple sold a 4.5" phone, they'd likely still sell huge numbers (maybe more). Everyone here underestimates just how much people buy for the apple on the back.
Click to expand...

I agree that there's some truth in this argument, but the size still matters. The important question is, how much does each of it matter? If Apple suddenly stopped making 4" handstes and switched to 4.5", most certainly many people will keep buying it, but some might be put off with the larger size and start looking for smaller handsets.
 
iBug2 said:
I agree that there's some truth in this argument, but the size still matters. The important question is, how much does each of it matter? If Apple suddenly stopped making 4" handstes and switched to 4.5", most certainly many people will keep buying it, but some might be put off with the larger size and start looking for smaller handsets.
Click to expand...

And there would be a newer group of purchases who wanted a larger iPhone. The question is whether or not it would pan out to a positive.
 
spjonez said:
Apple's 647 patent is an API to match structured data, specifically dates, addresses, and contact info.
Click to expand...

As I noted above, there is no "specifically" involved. It's a generic patent. The primary claim that Apple is using against Samsung/Google is this:

  • A computer-based system for detecting structures in data and performing actions on detected structures, comprising:
  • an input device for receiving data;
  • an output device for presenting the data;
  • a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device, and the memory for controlling the execution of the program routines.
 = A computer with input and output.

  • a memory storing information including program routines including
  • an analyzer server for detecting structures in the data, and for linking actions to the detected structures;
= The idea of using common code to search for linkable data.

  • a user interface enabling the selection of a detected structure and a linked action; and
  • an action processor for performing the selected action linked to the selected structure; and
= The idea of presenting a link and taking an action when that link is selected by the user.

That's it. If you really are a software developer, you should be horrified that such a generic patent idea would ever be granted, much less used against anyone who independently implements it.
 
Michael Goff said:
And there would be a newer group of purchases who wanted a larger iPhone. The question is whether or not it would pan out to a positive.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

----------
kdarling said:
That's it. If you really are a software developer, you should be horrified that such a generic patent idea would ever be granted, much less used against anyone who independently implements it.
Click to expand...

There's a patent for HIV, something "nature invented". So I'm not surprised things this trivial can be patented in the software world, which are nowhere near as harmful as patenting viruses for humanity.
 
beosound3200 said:
its not about money.

its about samsungs modus operandi

a complete lack of any kind of moral whatsoever
Click to expand...


Oh please every company copies , dont pretend apple is any better .

Stop identifying with a brand .

----------


why is there no premium 4 inch android handset sold? except maybe xperia z1 compact
Click to expand...

because why would you buy a 3.5" if for a simular price you have a 4 4.5" device ?

Its just not worth the effort to design for the ver small market that absolutly doesnt want a larger device . For the vast mayority the small difference in size doesnt matter for the added benefits .
 
I know this is an Apple forum and I suspect most of the comments will be in their favor but, Christ!
Can't you people be fair?

Samsung have been found to have infringed and in the same article Apple have too. Does being Pro Apple have to mean being Anti Samsung?

This is why people are accused of being fanboys and zealots.
 
thekev said:
I'm not sure you see the irony of claiming copied concepts on things with standardized components. Both of those connectors by definition have to match.
Click to expand...

the kev, why would a Samsung Galaxy Tab's USB cable "have to match" apple's connector?

----------
Lennholm said:
Ok, what do you think of this 2006 Samsung product? http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/03/samsungpictureframe.jpg
Click to expand...

i think it's a picture frame...what do you think, Lennholm? (i'm missing your point...please make it abundantly clear.)

i'll deviate from the samsung/apple comparison a bit...

illus-apn-ski.jpg


idea, courtesy of: rui.nelson (theverge.com)
image, courtesy of: lesnumeriques.com
 
iBug2 said:
There's a patent for HIV, something "nature invented".
Click to expand...

Well, a patent on growing it for vaccines and testing, anyway.

So I'm not surprised things this trivial can be patented in the software world, which are nowhere near as harmful as patenting viruses for humanity.
Click to expand...

Heck, a five year old got a patent on a new method of swinging in a swing.

It all reiterates the fact that a patent grant itself is not a guarantee that an invention isn't obvious or already known. The USPTO is too overworked for that.

A secondary problem is that we use juries made up of people like checkout clerks and retired plumbers, to decide sometimes highly technical claims. It's like asking a group of people off the street to decide what kind of brain surgery you should have. Certain things should be reserved for experts to decide.
 
LOL! Both of them were shown to be copycats. The only winners are the lawyers. Maybe now both companies can stop with these patent wars.
 
beosound3200 said:
why is there no premium 4 inch android handset sold? except maybe xperia z1 compact
Click to expand...

Apple's own market analysis highlighted that today's sales growth comes mainly from >4"+premium or small+cheap smartphones, and that's exactly what other smartphone makers do: large = premium, small = cheap.

That's why the iPhone 6 will most likely be >4" too: that's what most customers expect from a premium smartphone today.
 
iBug2 said:
This. People kept repeating over the years that Apple should make a larger phone. Why isn't Samsung making a smaller phone? Obviously there's a huge market for a 4" handset, after all that's half of Apple's revenue.
Click to expand...

How can you say this when Apple doesn't even have a large phone option on the market. There are plenty of die hard Apple fans stuck to Apple because their heavily invested in the ecosystem and they like just like Apple; nothing wrong with that. But if you stick a 4" iPhone and a 4.7" iPhone in front of them I bet anything that more people would choose the 4.7" phone if cost was the same. It's when you start getting in the phablet territory do you start to see a drop off; the Note series never outsold the Galaxy line.
Ask yourself; does Apple sale more full size iPad's or iPad mini's? Even with the price difference the full size model is still selling well vs the mini

----------
bsolar said:
Apple's own market analysis highlighted that today's sales growth comes mainly from >4"+premium or small+cheap smartphones, and that's exactly what other smartphone makers do: large = premium, small = cheap.

That's why the iPhone 6 will most likely be >4" too: that's what most customers expect from a premium smartphone today.
Click to expand...

Thank you!
 
jeffreyropp said:
Crime is pretty cheap when you consider the resulting revenues from Samsung's strategy. Best $119.6 million they ever spent.
Click to expand...

Apple posts R&D costs in the billions, so I agree - I don't think this fine on Samsung is intended to be discouraging. If you prefer the rosy point of view, it's just a precedent with a nice sense of humor.

At least they aren't actively killing their customers, so maybe the jury figured "let them be"? Not sure what the prevailing standards are...
 
Brady KEITH said:
the kev, why would a Samsung Galaxy Tab's USB cable "have to match" apple's connector?

----------



i think it's a picture frame...what do you think, Lennholm? (i'm missing your point...please make it abundantly clear.)

i'll deviate from the samsung/apple comparison a bit...

Image

idea, courtesy of: rui.nelson (theverge.com)
image, courtesy of: lesnumeriques.com
Click to expand...

Try again. All these vacuums look the same to me.

http://www.walmart.com/browse/appli...nv458925-moduleB052113-lLinkFC1BaggedUprights
 
iMember said:
What about Mac OS, Powerbook 100, iPhone, iPod, iPad?....all this was release before Apple vs Samsung competition
Click to expand...

Samsung only really makes a phone. None of those other things are really relevant to the conversation.
 
Brady KEITH said:
i'll deviate from the samsung/apple comparison a bit...

Image

idea, courtesy of: rui.nelson (theverge.com)
image, courtesy of: lesnumeriques.com
Click to expand...

Come on now, if your going to post stuff, at least get it right!

Samsung was able to defend itself against Dyson’s case by presenting “prior art” - an example of the idea being used before Dyson had patented it.
Click to expand...
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/17/samsung-dyson-vacuum-cleaner-patent-copyright
 
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