Being able to prove infringement is not the issue, the issue is sufficiency of disclosure: a patent requires that the solution is disclosed so that a person with ordinary skill in the art is able to implement it from the patent's description itself alone. From Wikipedia:
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.
Jury Finds Both Apple and Samsung Guilty of Patent Infringement, Samsung to Pay $119.6 Million, Apple to Pay $158,400
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Being able to prove infringement is not the issue, the issue is sufficiency of disclosure: a patent requires that the solution is disclosed so that a person with ordinary skill in the art is able to implement it from the patent's description itself alone. From Wikipedia:
you're telling me if everybody had money and android actually had the option to go 4 inch PREMIUM (z1 compact), most people would go 5 inch and more?
i think its EXACTLY opposite
if you wanna a premium phone and want android, you have no choice but go 5 inch.
and yes, android oems are not capable of making thin 4 inch premium phones. google (android) and qualcomm are equally responsible for that.
but we'll know for sure only by comparing z1 and z1 compact sales data
What part of Apple's patents don't fit under the bolded segment? 647, 721, 959, and 172 all do. The abstract of each patent is essentially pseudo code.
Thanks for the history lesson on lightbulbs..
My point was that patents for actual tangible products tend to be rather specific and that you can't patent the concept of a lightbulb, only a specific implementation of one.utter ********, ignorant and stupid. samsung had touchscreen phones before.
/edit: as shown in post #427
I have no idea what a "bag of pish" ist, but I get the drift.
And you are absolutely right: Everyone should buy what they "need" and not bash others that have a different opinion. I liked my IPHONEs, but for the stated reasons I choose (nobody forced me) to switch.----------
Excuse me, but would not any brand SMARTPHONE fall into this category? For me they are all alike to look at, but the functuality is a bit different. They all look the same, just the stuff you don't see (Ram, CPU, etc) make them different.
No question though: APPLE sure rocked the world when it came out with the IPHONE. They just seem to have gotten lazy (uninspired) of late. Tough being creative without Steve being around! That guy was just brilliant!!
Last edited:
I never claimed they don't comply, only that the reason a less detailed specification is allowed is because that's enough to make the invention reproducible by a person with ordinary skill in the art, not because that makes proving infringement possible.
In my opinion protecting software with patents is a good idea on paper which has too many drawbacks to be sustainable in practice: it's only a matter of time before this unsustainability will force a different solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate
I guess you are missing my point. In the post I was replying to, you linked an image of a TV remote control with design features reminiscent of the iPhone in order to show how Samsung copies Apple. If the design of that completely different product is a copy of the iPhone, then certainly the iPad design is a copy of that pre-existing picture frame, since we are now also considering products with completely different purposes. Or do you hold them to different standards?
Last edited:
The difference is that the "original" Samsung touchscreen phone weren't bigger or even medium sellers. They were resistive touch instead of capacitive (capacitive is way better). They were single touch as opposed to iPhone multitouch (which they licensed from Apple).
Did Samsung have touch screen phone prior to iPhone, yes. Were good phones that sold, no. That only happened after they "borrowed" the best parts of the iPhone and incorporated them. Also installed Andriod rather then a proprietary system.
You know what's interesting about this image? It seems that all Samsung touch screen phones before 2007 were made on 2006! Not sure why mock up's are used to illustrate here though! Too many so I decided to check one of them to see when it was announced or produced! The F700 according to this image was made on 2006! Well, not quite right according to this one.
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_f700-1849.php
Attachments
Basically it comes down to this: What would you do if you where company XYZ?
Right, everything you could get away with!!!
Right, everything you could get away with!!!
Exactly, and very well put.
If any of the people here owned a company making something, and a competitor changed the item in some way which made it sell like hot cakes.
Would you stand by watch your company fail and the people you employ lose their jobs, or would you adopt similar changes to make your product more appealing in a similar way also.
Even as simple as you make black hard top cars.
Another company brings out a red soft top and their sales go thru the roof as it's then plain people love red soft tops.
So you are not going to then try and do everything to appeal to the same audience and bring out your own red soft top?
Started with PL/1 and Fortran in the early 70s, switched to machine assembler for microprocessors in the late 70s, then onto various C flavors in the 90s, and in the past decade, Java for Blackberry, Android and still do a fair amount of Java for server side code.
But my primary coding for the past 19 years or so has been HTML web apps. That's why I was able to immediately help new iPhone Safari programmers in one of the first iPhone developer forums. I already knew what was required for a good web based touch app.
(This is also why our handheld group was not bowled over by the first iPhone demo. There was nothing in it that was new to us. Once you decide to go finger friendly, lots of things fall into place.)
As for HTML5, I like it, but some of it is just poorly thought out. Like the cache manifest not returning any meaningful error (e.g. which file it failed on). I wish now that I had helped them make the standards.
Thanks for the tip! I did just that, and there's some useful regular expressions in there. (Btw, I've been doing map address regexps for a couple of years now. I have to fix up poorly written addresses, especially with city abbreviations and high rise floors thrown in.)
However, this makes it even more puzzling that you would think that Google infringed on anything. Calling a subroutine to apply a regexp is used all the time. I mean, A LOT.
Ah, perhaps there's the disconnect. Neither the abstract nor the description matters. What's important is the claims section.
As I laid out in detail, Apple's claim is nothing more than calling an API. It's all gussied up in fancy legal language, but that's all it is.
There's no pseudo code in the claims.
They did. That's why there's a trial. Google didn't steal the idea of clickable links from Apple. That idea has been in use since the 1980s, in all sorts of personal DB programs. Even when Apple got the patent in 1996, doing that was already well known. I just think nobody noticed the patent.
Mistakes are made all the time. That's what patent challenges are for
The USPTO is a government agency after all. The rules were changed recently so that quantity gets more job points than quality, there are time limits, and it's now easier to grant a patent than to refuse it. You can imagine the results.
Apple is well known for submitting and resubmitting an application until the examiner's alloted time runs out. At that point, historically the examiners have tended to grant the patent, figuring it can always be challenged later on if it causes trouble.
The funny thing is, that a lot of contributers here seem to think that consumers can't tell the difference between a APPLE and SAMSUNG product if they are "similar"! I don't think that there is one person that bought a SAMSUNG by "mistake" because the box is similar.
Exactly. For one thing, shoppers are not allowed to just take an expensive smartphone (or tablet) box off the shelf. You have to ask for to be gotten from storage, as in "I'd like that model please... yes, the Samsung one."
Shoppers also don't go by what the USB cable looks like, nor the power supply cube... things that Apple has never complained about either.
If someone actually goes into a store to buy an iPhone and comes out with a Samsung, it's NOT because the boxes looked similar. It's because a salesperson talked them into it.
I was trying to make the point, that the app probably looks that way, because wallets in real life do.
Yep, Apple did not invent the idea of using real world objects in programs. Especially they were not first to use the idea of a wallet when they came out with their Passbook in 2012. Here's Square's app a year before:
Apple also did not invent icons that look like wallets. Theirs did have a slanted opening though, that differentiated themselves from other wallet icons.
Yep again. To me, Apple's looks a lot more like HTC's, than Samsung's ever looked like Apple's.
Not to mention when Apple added voice input AFTER Android did:
The whole point of icons is to be meaningful to a user. That's why they tend to look alike.
Last edited:
Sort of tired of hearing this meme. One of the things that has been clear in recent years is that Apple is innovating behind the scenes if ways that surprise the rest of the industry. The iPhone and the iPad did not come about because Samsung or anyone else was driving Apple to create them. Apple is internally driven to create. Having a copycat dogging your heals does not support the creative process.
"Guilty"?
I think the words the author of the headline was looking for are "liable for." This was a civil action, not a criminal prosecution.
I think the words the author of the headline was looking for are "liable for." This was a civil action, not a criminal prosecution.
weak bash-try.
the 2006 image is form the mock up that was shown/leaked. the actual product is listed down below, released feb 2007, as seen in the very image.
Guess this is why Apple gave us $100 off the MBA? Lol
----------
Amen!
Samsung should've came out with something different. Something that actually split the market because of innovation, not bc Samsung sold their plastic phones at a cheaper pricepoint to compete.
----------
On a side note, not bc I'm an Apple fan boy or what not, but Apples icon of a microphone actually looks like a microphone. Not sure what Samsungs is? The mount points are too low and gapped to much.
----------
Amen!
Samsung should've came out with something different. Something that actually split the market because of innovation, not bc Samsung sold their plastic phones at a cheaper pricepoint to compete.
----------
On a side note, not bc I'm an Apple fan boy or what not, but Apples icon of a microphone actually looks like a microphone. Not sure what Samsungs is? The mount points are too low and gapped to much.
A infringement ist an infringement, ist an infringement, etc.....
Unless Apple is infringing.
I think we can all agree that Apple never invented anything. They just patent everything and give themselves credit for everything making all the pathetic little delusional fan boy and girls who's lives would otherwise have no meaning something to live for. Unfortunately these people are actually grown men and women fighting like dogs on the internet over who makes a better phone and worshiping corporate suits as if they were gods. You just can't fix pathetic.
Sorry, but I like the "plastic" (Sort of tired of hearing this meme)!! First of it is lighter than the glass and much more important, it can take a lot more. You drop your IPHONE and I am sure that the case is broken, right? I am on my second SAMSUNG and very happy with the light "plastic". For instance, when I need to get at the exchangable battery or RAM-slot the "plastic" cover comes off rather easely. Ups, guess that is nothing to worry about on a IPHONE. ;-)
The APPLE microphone is old school, SAMSUNG choose a modern mike. That is the way I see it anyway! And you obviously also see that there is a difference, no matter what someone else here proposed!
Last edited:
Once again Samsung is told that stealing is a good business strategy. Billions in profits and only millions in penalties.