Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
For an idea of real winning in IP fights: Nokia losing to Qualcomm

For an idea of what is real money and real winning in these IP fights, look at the settlement Qualcomm forced Nokia to take:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/17/business/fi-qualcomm17

"Qualcomm Inc., the San Diego-based chip maker, will receive about $2.3 billion as part of a royalty-fight settlement with Nokia Corp., the world's leading maker of cellphones.

The one-time payment ..."

Observe the press at that time took no notice of how unusual an immediate multi-billion dollar payment was. In retrospect there was no evidence Nokia actually successfully bargained for the rights to Qualcomm's CDMA IP, IP that is vital for working on Verizon's US CDMA network.

Also the press had no idea who had the most valuable future IP:

"Qualcomm makes much of its money licensing its technology to wireless carriers and handset makers. It has a near monopoly on the cellphone chip technology in 3G phones.

But Qualcomm does not have the same lock on the next-generation phone technology, which is growing in popularity in Europe. Nokia wanted to pay a lower rate over the long term, given the changing market, industry analysts said.

Qualcomm's 3G technology is "peaking out and will fade for the next 20 years," said Edward Snyder, principal analyst at Charter Equity Research."

Look how badly the press misled its readers at that time. In reality Nokia was already disinvesting from wireless modems, despite half a decade previous bragging it and former fab partner TI had a complete wireless solution stack, and would in a couple of years sell that business off. Furthermore in a couple of years Nokia for its higher end phones would be forced to come crawling to Qualcomm for its complete ARM SoC and would be forced to ditch its own phone OS in favor of Microsoft Windows Phone, an OS that was supported only an Qualcomm chips. And we know the rest of what happened to Nokia's phone business.

Now that's winning an IP fight. And at the time no one in the press knew what a complete victory Qualcomm had won versus Nokia. What Apple "won" today is completely inconsequential.
 

or, this...

touch-control01.jpg


device name: Samsung RMC30D universal Touch Control TV remote
idea, courtesy of: erichohh (theverge.com)
image, courtesy of: engadget.com
 
Don't forget the various chips and displays you use on a daily basis be it in tv's, blu-ray players, vehicles, washer machines, ect. Just because it doesn't say Samsung doesn't mean that a Samsung component is not inside it. One way or another your giving money to Samsung and you have no choice but to. What are you going to do? Ask the manufacture if a product is Samsung free?

Hey, Apple people are doing that with apple computers today. Macbook Pros, is there a Samsung display inside? Otherwise, they don't want it.
 
While I agree with you. One could argue that every graphical OS in existence is copied. Even though Apple had notifications in OS X, they failed to integrate it into iOS until after the competition. I don't think they "copied", they just addressed a need somewhat late.

Better notifications should have been integrated by iOS 3 since this was a "phone" with email, texts, calls, and a growing number of apps.


..and there goes the battery!, Apple din't integrated because the tech. was not available and it wouldnt work properly
 
Last edited:
..and there goes the battery!, Apple they din't integrated because the tech. was not available and it wouldnt work properly

Yes, for push. But they could have had a central location for past notifications (i.e. notification center). Once you dismissed it it was gone.
 
I only like Samsung because they force Apple to innovate, improve hardware & features, and keeps price in check. No matter what you think about Samsung, competition is good for the consumer. And don't tell me you're a shareholder because you own 3 shares of AAPL.
 
Make no mistake, sure it would have been nice for Apple to be awarded more because we all know that Samsung have shamefully profited from Apple's R and D from day one, however this is an unequivocal win for Apple in further establishing the egregious and wilful theft of their ideas by Samsung.

This will make it more difficult in future for Samsung as they will need to come up with a better strategy than theft and in the meantime Apple will slowly pull ahead simply because the quality of their hardware/software is and will always be better.
 
Apple has to pay about 0.000001002% out of their bank.

It's not about the money. Both were found guilty of something. It was like a waste of time because the penalty is nothing for both companies.
Apple should have spent more time in the lab building new product and I don't mean revisions of Steve Job leftovers. All Apple products are vulnerable to the competition.
 
My personal opinion is that all these patents, save for slide-to-unlock which can be argued a thousand different ways, are so very functionally obvious, it's amazing they managed to pass through the patent system at all.

All in all, this wasn't a win for anyone involved. Yeah, Apple got their win over 3 of the 5 patents, but Samsung got their two, and the jury all but stated that both companies patents aren't worth nearly as much as they're claiming.
 
So what happens when Apple copies other vendors like Android notifications or WebOS task control? Or does it only work one way?

Don't forget the swiss watch apple got caught lifting and had to pay. Apple tried to buy/license but they told apple NO. Apple is as crooked as any other big company. Its over now, finally. Lets move on.
 
And in the end, $117mm is a slap on the wrist.

The only people that benefit from all this childishness are the IP attorneys.

They would have paid more to come up with those concepts in R&D, so this is a huge win for Samsung if anything.

----------

I bet this verdict isn't big enough to put Samsung completely out of business for good...I wish it had been, though!

You, you're like 5 years old aren't you? You have no concept of this case at all.

----------

Samsung basically copied the whole idea of the iPhone and sold it off as the Samsung Galaxy. The iPhone WAS the first "smartphone" or "touch screen" mobile telephone....every single "smartphone" on the market since then has essentially been a rip off of the iPhone. Apple should be able to make hay on this, I don't see why they're not.

Funny, my Treo 650 had a touch screen and was a smartphone and mobile telephone too...dumbass
 
The original ruling seemed much more fair in my view, and for everyone that says software patents must go i think that is a bit near sighted, its hard for companies to justify spending billions in r&d when the result is some other company can steal it and only get a slap on the wrist.

Reforms are needed, but the evidence was over whelming that Samsung copied the iPhone.
 
Samsung basically copied the whole idea of the iPhone and sold it off as the Samsung Galaxy. The iPhone WAS the first "smartphone" or "touch screen" mobile telephone....every single "smartphone" on the market since then has essentially been a rip off of the iPhone. Apple should be able to make hay on this, I don't see why they're not.

Oh, and what about the multitouch? I thought Apple had a patent on this technology.

Oh my God, do you SERIOUSLY think that? I missed your comment.. you know what it's not even worth it with such a stupid comment.

go and educate yourself, you can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ericsson_R380

Yeah Apple invented electricity too you know, Jobs even stated he patented the hell out of it!
 
The original ruling seemed much more fair in my view, and for everyone that says software patents must go i think that is a bit near sighted, its hard for companies to justify spending billions in r&d when the result is some other company can steal it and only get a slap on the wrist.

Reforms are needed, but the evidence was over whelming that Samsung copied the iPhone.

Apple didn't spend billions in R&D making the first iPhone. And if they did, most of it would be sunk into touchscreen technologies rather than basic software like these patents cover.

I mean universal search? That's been around since the 90's. Same with identifying text as something else, a'la phone numbers. Those were two patents Apple had on trial, and two patents that are just SO obvious and have SO much prior art...gaw.

I know, it's the implementation. But how does Apple know Samsung lifted their implementation directly? They wouldn't be able to do that unless they had access to the iOS source code.
 
Apple didn't spend billions in R&D making the first iPhone. And if they did, most of it would be sunk into touchscreen technologies rather than basic software like these patents cover.

I mean universal search? That's been around since the 90's. Same with identifying text as something else, a'la phone numbers. Those were two patents Apple had on trial, and two patents that are just SO obvious and have SO much prior art...gaw.

I know, it's the implementation. But how does Apple know Samsung lifted their implementation directly? They wouldn't be able to do that unless they had access to the iOS source code.

It doesn't necessarily have to be about source code. If apple patented it, then the basic methodology was out there. Samsung would simply have to look at the patent to get an understanding of the logic behind Apples 'feature' and implement it the same way with different code.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.