The reference was the disign patten which Dyson stole the idea from prior art and pattened them to sue. ( Hello ! Ever heard of Prior Art . )
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
The reference was the disign patten which Dyson stole the idea from prior art and pattened them to sue. ( Hello ! Ever heard of Prior Art . )
I just cant bring myself to buy other Samsung products
I just cant bring myself to buy other Samsung products. They make refrigerators; washer/dryers TVs and god know how much tech they stole from their competitors just gain their present foothold in the appliance market. Just seems almost immoral to support their modus of operandi of tech theft, buying any other their rip-off's.
I just cant bring myself to buy other Samsung products. They make refrigerators; washer/dryers TVs and god know how much tech they stole from their competitors just gain their present foothold in the appliance market. Just seems almost immoral to support their modus of operandi of tech theft, buying any other their rip-off's.
Maybe your reference was. That doesn't make the person that you were replying to wrong.
And Dyson didn't steal the idea from prior art. And it wasn't a design patent.
So instead of doing research and making a determination for yourself, you're going to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" and assume that everything they make is "stolen" tech and therefor never buy a Samsung product. Ok - you're entitled. Seems a bit extremist to me. But that's your decision...
The fact that Dyson dropped this case due to early discovery of "prior art" does not mean Samsung did not copy Dyson specifically at this time in history. It just means they copied legally.
Samsung has unabashedly admitted to copying ideas and designs from time to time, not sure why Apple user haters go against that.
The baby's a fake
well, since you asked...
They are a whole lot of shady things about Samsung I have uncovered.
1, On January 14, 2008, Lee's home and office were raided by the Korean police for an ongoing probe into accusations that Samsung is responsible for a slush fund used to bribe influential prosecutors, judges, and political figures in South Korea.
2, Samsung was fined $340,300 by Taiwan's Fair Trade Commission for paying people to post messages online that attacked HTC products while praising Samsung's.
3, Twice they were convicted of ripping off Apple. Twice.
Turns out the bathwater is bad and the baby is a fake doll and are merrily thrown out
well, since you asked...
They are a whole lot of shady things about Samsung I have uncovered.
1, On January 14, 2008, Lee's home and office were raided by the Korean police for an ongoing probe into accusations that Samsung is responsible for a slush fund used to bribe influential prosecutors, judges, and political figures in South Korea.
2, Samsung was fined $340,300 by Taiwan's Fair Trade Commission for paying people to post messages online that attacked HTC products while praising Samsung's.
3, Twice they were convicted of ripping off Apple. Twice.
Turns out the bathwater is bad and the baby is a fake doll and are merrily thrown out
Leaked? Is that the best they could come up with? Leaked and muck up's? That seriously made me laugh really loud
It says quite a lot, doesn't it.
Dead argument!!
dead argument? what are you even talking about?
do you even know what a mock up and a leak is? your comment is truly stupid and shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. what exactly does that have to do with "is that the best they could come up with?"
The fact that Dyson dropped this case due to early discovery of "prior art" does not mean Samsung did not copy Dyson specifically at this time in history. It just means they copied legally.
Samsung has unabashedly admitted to copying ideas and designs from time to time, not sure why Apple user haters go against that.
No, it means Dyson copied the idea in the first place and should never have been given a patent. This is exactly what Apple does, copys someone then manages to get a patent for it to sue everyone else that copies. It does this as well as developing some things itself.
You best throw out every single piece of electronic device you own into a skip then. Because the chances are, especially if its made by Apple, it has chips or components inside made by Samsung.
Last edited:
One thing I've never understoof about all this, if Apple is so miffed at Samsung, why don't they stop using componments built by them? I know this is something that can't be done overnight, but they could start the process. It would have much more impact on Samsung than all this sillyness in court (the only effect of which is to make lawyers richer). Yes it might hurt Apple too, but I'm sure the pain would be short lived.
Let me rephrase slightly for you: Apple do not have the bollocks and/or legal position to sue Google.
1. It's a whole lot different to sue a US company in the US when compared to suing a foreign (Korean) company - people have biases.
2. Google have not gone out of their way to blatantly copy Apple visual styling as Samsung have.
3. Apple and Apple users are still generally heavily reliant on Google and Google services.
4. Google has gone to great lengths over the last few years to remove implementations of features from stock Android which could be perceived as violations of Apple IP.
5. Google has a massive library of it's own patents, many of which are not software features (Eg. elastic banding, slide to unlock), but are instead fundamental telephony patents which were gained by acquiring Motorola Mobility. Technology that if Google chose to enforce patents on, Apple could not reimplement because they are used in hardware and communications protocols.
6. Google makes nothing from Android - there are no profits to sue for. They have clearly separated Google Services from the underlying (and free) Android OS which is where any potential software IP would most likely be violated.
7. If they did have the bollocks to launch a major direct legal attack on Google in a jurisdiction in a major market, they would have done so already.
This is getting more and more ridiculous! Now it is not ok to do something legal anymore?The fact that Dyson dropped this case due to early discovery of "prior art" does not mean Samsung did not copy Dyson specifically at this time in history. It just means they copied legally.
Samsung has unabashedly admitted to copying ideas and designs from time to time, not sure why Apple user haters go against that.
And everyone that does not accept everything APPLE does at face value ist automaticallyl a "APPLE user hater". Why is that? Maybe we are just old enough to form our own opinion, which just not happens to fit your very narrow horizon.
Last edited:
None of this is against my statement except the first word. Which is incorrect.
----------
Well, you've assumed that I have a narrow horizon. You've assumed that I accept what Apple does. You've assumed I have some sort of legality complex.This is getting more and more ridiculous! Now it is not ok to do something legal anymore?
And everyone that does not accept everything APPLE does at face value ist automaticallyl a "APPLE user hater". Why is that? Maybe we are just old enough to form our own opinion, which just not happens to fit your very narrow horizon.
None of that is accurate, I merely said in one post that Samsung tends to copy products from other companies. Which they themselves verified in court.
However, since your thoughts tend straight towards me being an idiot, I call you a hater of me, by all means prove me wrong on this point, but your posts will be evidence against you. Thank you for your opinion. You've joined a very large club at this website of Apple user haters.
No, it doesn't. You would need to have evidence that Dyson was aware of the prior art before they applied for the patent in order to make that claim.
And wrong again!
Maybe I am no fan of the phone, but I sure have a lot of other hardware with the 
logo on it. So, if you want to call me a name, call me "IPHONE not so much liker".By the way, at no point did I call you a name!!! And again, please explain to me why "copying legally" is not ok?
Last edited:
Has any one pointed out that the "win" for Samsung despite owing almost 120M because of this suit is that Apple "lost" their case that based on these patent infringements, they are entitled to $40 per device. That would have been for past devices and in the future. That's pretty significant.
Last edited:
And wrong again!
By the way, at no point did I call you a name!!! And again, please explain to me why "copying legally" is not ok?
I never said you hated Apple or their products.
Copying is fine. Legal is legal. Samsung has gone over the edge. Check the latest report, quoting a Vanity Fair article.
That's fine. My point (that you still missed) was that if a rowing oar and a boat motor are each patentable, neither of them infringe on the other.
In this case, your point is wrong, the patent is about the gesture, not the underlying technology
And this is why the patent has been invalidated in Europe
This isn't totally true, since Google makes money off their services, and Android serves as a vehicle for those in the mobile space. It's not as direct a moneymaker as iOS is for Apple, or WP is for MS, but they're still getting income from it.
Plus it being given away freely doesn't protect it from patent lawsuits. Quite a few Linux vendors have been fighting MS and other companies for years over alleged IP infringement in the Linux kernel. It's never escalated to the level of Apple and Samsung, but there have been a few compromises and license agreements made on both sides.
Actually, the patent was not about the gesture or the underlying technology, it was about the manipulation of an image along a path on a touch-sensitive display to unlock a device.
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1531387/US7657849B2.pdf
The claims begin in column 19.
No, it was invalidated in Europe because the unique elements of the Apple patent over the prior art was considered an obvious extension of existing methods per European law.
1. Not really. In fact this makes no sense at all. U.S. companies sue each other in U.S. courts all the time.
2. At least some of the patents over which the two have sued each other are present in Android.
3. Apple is even more heavily reliant on Samsung. We can see Apple moving away from Google services (e.g., Maps), but not from Samsung's manufacturing.
4. Have they really? Which ones?
5. Companies never choose not to enforce patents. Neglecting to protect IP when it is infringed upon is tantamount to admitting that they aren't defensible or aren't worth anything.
6. This is completely irrelevant. A company sues another for damages, as derived from a loss of their business. How much the other company made from infringing has nothing to do with this.
7. This is a misunderstanding. Each judgement in Apple's favor on the various patents can be used in other trials as facts that don't need to be re-litigated. This is essentially what happened to Microsoft. They were penalized hardly at all by the government in the antitrust trial, but the findings of fact in that trial were so complete and so damning that Microsoft ended up paying hundreds of millions in damages to a long list of companies. I don't recall any of them even having to go to trial.
I have no doubt that the endgame is going after Google. Just you wait and see.