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
That is because people like you are defending the thefts of the "smaler" company. Every company is pushing the envelope on what is legal (or they think they can get away with) all the time. Some even get the president to overrule a decision a US court made. Wow, that seems really fair!! Wonder if he would have done that for XYZ or for that matter any non-US company??? So if a foreign company wins agains a US company (in this case APPLE), it is ok for the president to just ignore the courts decision. That sure sets a nice signal for other (US) companys. "Let's try it and if it blows up in our face, we will just run to the president!!"
By the way, the "slap on the wrist" was awarded by a jury. Maybe they just decided, after viewing all the evidence (which none of us did), that APPLE did not deserve more? Just because someone asks for a totally over the top compensation, doesn't mean, that they actually deserve it. Kind of like when you try and sell your car!!
Sadly, I do believe, that is business as usual! And not only by the companys mentioned in this thread.
Furthermore please read this article (this is not the National Enquirer, but the story sure reads like it was!!) and then explain to me again, why it is ok for this poor "small company" to be excluded from normal justice precedings! http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/03/business/steve-jobs-a-genius-at-pushing-boundaries-too.html?_r=0
Last edited:
Yes, that is EXACTLY what I am telling you.
Put it this way then.... ask someone who has a Galaxy S5, An HTC M8 if they would ignore the OS and drop those phones for an iPhone 5S that costs around the same.
They will tell you no, and I bet the screen size would have a lot to do with that. Why do you think phablets exists? If no one bought them then no one would make them would they.
The public demanded and LOVES big screen phones, why the hell do you think we have rumours of a bigger screen iPhone 6 now? It's because the public WANTS them.
----------
hahahahahahahahaha talk about living in total denial and utterly blinded by Apples Reality Distortion Field!!
The Neonode N1m isn't a touchscreen phone??? ROFL!!!!! hahahahaha
Here, this is a video of a person 'touching' the 'screen' and the phone responds!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0
You sir can't handle the truth basically. Apple STOLE a copyright design, and it COPIED the slide to unlock feature from prior art.
Here's a story how a judge told Apple that exact same thing and it LOST to HTC in an attempt to sue them over the slide to unlock BS:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18709232
As usual, if you can't come up with anything better, you deny it and don't provide any explanation or data to the contrary.
The articles links provide quite a lot of info:
The Neonode was IR based, and the iPhone is capacitive (i.e. proximity) based.
Therefore neither one records an actual touch, such as a resistive touchscreen does.
Nevertheless, all are considered touchscreens, along with acoustic, interference, and camera based versions.
What you have quoted does't talks about FRAND patents, it is talking about the use of ITC to ask injunctions because the only outcome the ITC has is ask for an injunction, it can't do anything else.
Your original quote is
FTC doesn't disprove imports based on FRAND patents as your links proves, I have proves with your the own ITC links where they EXPLICITLY estates that they approve injunctions in some circumstances.
As usual, you will deny it even if I copy and paste the ****ing quote. But it is your normal procedure so, have a nice day.
I doubt their attorney fees are several million dollars.
And even If they equal out the real point is affirming their IP. Apple can ask to have all offending products banned from sale, can ask for a higher fine if there is later infringement etc. Being able to block others from using IP can be the higher reward
The articles I've linked most certainly talk about FRAND patent cases.
Generally, no. In special cases, yes
If you want options go elsewhere. Apple doesn't do options, especially at the level of folks like Samsung
Samsung must have already factored this into their operating costs when they started doing this. Not nearly enough to be a problem.
----------
Apple gives multiple screen size options for Macs. Though I'm annoyed that the 17" MBP is gone. Not too worried about not having the option to buy an oversized iPhone.
----------
Everyone does. Check out Samsung's phones "before and after" the iPhone.
----------
Is ignoring the copies the grown-up thing to do?
----------
Apple should focus its resources on innovation and litigation, not inflation from keeping it in the bank
And stock buybacks. I wanted it to rhyme.
----------
Apple gives multiple screen size options for Macs. Though I'm annoyed that the 17" MBP is gone. Not too worried about not having the option to buy an oversized iPhone.
----------
Everyone does. Check out Samsung's phones "before and after" the iPhone.
----------
Is ignoring the copies the grown-up thing to do?
----------
Apple should focus its resources on innovation and litigation, not inflation from keeping it in the bank
And stock buybacks. I wanted it to rhyme.
You may want to familiarize yourself with the difference between corporate espionage and patent infringement. You could not be jailed for patent infringement. You could end up in jail for illegally retrieving the information needed to reverse engineer that patent from servers owned or licensed by that company.
People buy Samsung products because of screen size and freedom to do what you want with the user interface... and replaceable battery. It's about having options. Apple is great though. The experience on an iPhone is butter and it has more refined apps... on the other hand the Google Play store is easier to use, allows you to make refunds easily, and it's easier to search for apps... there are positives and negatives on both systems.
If Apple only gave customers more options there wouldn't be much competition. Unfortunately, if it doesn't do so soon Google will likely crush them, especially with project Ara (allowing customers to customize hardware too)... think about it, Google has caught up and arguably surpassed Apple in the smartphone market in such a short period of time based solely on the ability to customize its UI. Google's lead will only snowball because Google will likely innovate at a faster pace than Apple while offering even more customization. I'd say, if Apple doesn't get it's head out of it's ass, you'll see a repeat of the 90's where Microsoft just took off and Apple was left in the dust. Give customers what they want Apple!
Im not defending anyone's bad behavior. Im saying the punishment is unequal. Sighting that is not in any way an endorsement of bad behavior. You added something to my post that wasnt actually there. If you dont care to argue about what is in my post fine.....but dont put words into my mouth.That is because people like you are defending the thefts of the "smaler" company. Every company is pushing the envelope on what is legal (or they think they can get away with) all the time. Some even get the president to overrule a decision a US court made. Wow, that seems really fair!! Wonder if he would have done that for XYZ or for that matter any non-US company??? So if a foreign company wins agains a US company (in this case APPLE), it is ok for the president to just ignore the courts decision. That sure sets a nice signal for other (US) companys. "Let's try it and if it blows up in our face, we will just run to the president!!"
By the way, the "slap on the wrist" was awarded by a jury. Maybe they just decided, after viewing all the evidence (which none of us did), that APPLE did not deserve more? Just because someone asks for a totally over the top compensation, doesn't mean, that they actually deserve it. Kind of like when you try and sell your car!!
Sadly, I do believe, that is business as usual! And not only by the companys mentioned in this thread.
Furthermore please read this article (this is not the National Enquirer, but the story sure reads like it was!!) and then explain to me again, why it is ok for this poor "small company" to be excluded from normal justice precedings! http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/03/business/steve-jobs-a-genius-at-pushing-boundaries-too.html?_r=0
Secondly, your argument falls flat because there were math errors in the jury's calculations.
----------
At the end of the day the point I am making is that if the punishments actually hurt in all cases, no one would do it with such blatant disregard for the law as Samsung has done. It keeps everyone out of court.
Last edited:
Apple can ask for a ban, but it's not likely to happen.
Apple already tried for an injunction using the last trial's winning IP, and was denied because of a lack of a causal nexus between infringement and irreparable harm.
In other words, they could not prove that people bought the Samsung devices because of the few patents involved. Heck, they couldn't even prove that people bought Apple devices because of them.
As that judgement said, Apple "cannot obtain a permanent injunction merely because Samsung's lawful competition impacts Apple in a way that monetary damages cannot remedy. To award an injunction to Apple in these circumstances would ignore the Federal Circuit's warning that a patentee may not 'leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant.'"
--
Now that patent damages have been set for both sides, there's the question of continuing royalties going forward. I don't think Samsung makes their devices in question any more. Perhaps the Tab 2.
Does Apple still sell the 4S in the US? Perhaps this trial is one reason why they didn't sell the iPhone 5 any more, as it would be subject to royalties as well... but instead switched to the 5C to avoid paying Samsung.
If something is easy to copy, like singing "happy birthday", then it shouldn't be considered a copy, but just the natural way that things happen. Everything is essentially a copy. When you learn a language, you're copying your parents, so you're a plagiarist.
Only small businesses/artists should be protected by copyright; actually copyright only help big businesses to become bigger.
Actually, people just want bigger screens.
Games, typing, reading, web browsing, videos... The experience is better on a larger screen.
I'm sorry, did YOU watch the video? THEY explain that it's not really touch screen as we know it today. It works off a different technology than typical topuchscreens.
(Hey guess what? A backlit doorbell button isn't "touch screen" either, even though you activate it by touching it.
If Apple were truly promoters of innovation, then they wouldn't be filing patents all over the place. If Mercedes Benz patented internal combustion cylinder based engines, what would we all be driving?
To me this smells of anti competitive behaviour on Apple's part. Sour apples that Samsung is stealing their thunder.
Apple's time at the top has come to an end, look at their recent stuff. Nothing innovated, just renovated. And they like to whinge about their ideas being copied but how many ideas have they copied from others? Notifications was Android, Volume up button to take a picture was from an App, flashlight was an app, fingerprint scanner was from Motorolla, live wallpapers is Android, not to mention all the goodies that Apple has copied from Jailbroken iOS versions.
To me this smells of anti competitive behaviour on Apple's part. Sour apples that Samsung is stealing their thunder.
Apple's time at the top has come to an end, look at their recent stuff. Nothing innovated, just renovated. And they like to whinge about their ideas being copied but how many ideas have they copied from others? Notifications was Android, Volume up button to take a picture was from an App, flashlight was an app, fingerprint scanner was from Motorolla, live wallpapers is Android, not to mention all the goodies that Apple has copied from Jailbroken iOS versions.
Obligated? No. Patents aren't like copyrights, which have to defended or risk being lost. They own their patents for 25+ years, and can be as selective about enforcing them as they want to be.
Also Wizard of Wor is awesome.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, you stated it was not a 'Touch Screen', not that it has a different technology to what Apple uses. And the technology exists on both devices so they react when you touch the screen. They are both 'touch screens'.
With your logic a rowing boat is a boat but a motor boat is not a boat because one has oars and one has an engine and propeller.