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

Samsung Already Planning to Target iPhone 5 with Patent Lawsuits

vrDrew said:
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the legal and ethical principals behind (F)RAND.
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing a major point in this case. :) See below.

When a company such as Samsung has its IP accepted by mobile telephony as an "Essential Standard" ...
Click to expand...

Ah. There's the thing.

Samsung did not submit all of its patents to the ETSI GSM group, which is why I brought up the fact that Ericsson, when they were a defendent in 2006, had also taken the stance that some/all of the patents should've been included in the RAND pool.

That's why I said "Apple contends they involve RAND" patents.
 
kdarling said:
You seem to be missing a major point in this case. :) See below.



Ah. There's the thing.

Samsung did not submit all of its patents to the ETSI GSM group, which is why I brought up the fact that Ericsson had previously also taken the stance that some/all of the patents should've been included in the RAND pool.

That's why I said "Apple contends that they're RAND".
Click to expand...

But isn't the contention that it is dishonest to have agreed to the RAND pool while withholding other patents that are essential to the standard? By pre-announcing this lawsuit without knowledge of Apple's implementation, Samsung is essentially admitting as much.
 
divinox said:
A user swinging things around on MacRumor, how rare. In what way is your response relevant for the context in which my post was made? Clarify, and you may be worthy of a response.
Click to expand...

You said it was a "choice." I pointed out the difference between choosing to market a product which requires specific technology and having the owner of that technology use their ownership to squeeze out competitors, and not being kept out the market and choosing to copy wholesale non-essential elements of another product in order to compete.

Samsung is apparently threatening Apple with the former, while Apple is suing Samsung for the latter. I believe that there is a big difference in the choices we are discussing.
 
BaldiMac said:
Again, there is a difference between legally copying an idea and stealing IP. You are picking and choosing parts of an argument. We've had the discussion over and over again.
Click to expand...

Uhm, Samsung hasnt infringed upon Apples green phone icon. For good reason too, as every other phone icon for a few decades have used the handset and the accent color green. (From what i've gathered, they have trademarked one though, one that - as stated - Samsung is not infringing upon).

Since you have a hard time understanding: Sometimes the exact same (legal) act is considered wrong, sometimes its considered right. The common theme seems to be that when Apple is the "thief" its all good, and when Apple is the victim its all bad.

No, none of the above is meant to imply that Apple broke any law by placing books on a virtual bookshelf-looking shelf.

Seems pretty obvious. If you don't have any rights to an idea, you can't be deprived of those non-existent rights.
Click to expand...

Which essentially boils down to: Those who don't have the resources to protect themselves have only themselves to blame. Which is the point i made in my first post. As such, you are in support of a system that is inherently biased towards the "have-alots" and against the "have-nots", rather than a system that is intended to protect intellectual property as traditionally conceived (i.e. a right belonging to the creator of said property, rather than the entity that best manages to secure the rights to it).


For certain types of IP. Copyright does not require registration.
Click to expand...
It does, however, require resources to protect. Those without, de facto, have no protection at all (meaning, its FFA to steal from them).
Yes, if you don't apply for a patent, you don't get protection under patent law. Seems obvious. Not sure why you choose to twist it around like you did. Patents are not prohibitively expensive.
Click to expand...

Have you ever filed a patent? Have you ever protected a patent? On what grounds do you say that which you say? Further, resources are more than just cash.

But you are trying to twist my statement into a generality. I specifically asked about what was stolen in the Delicious Monster example that we were discussing.
Click to expand...

(actually, you asked something different, something in the lines of: should X get resources from Y for...)

And i simply responded: Nothing, as long as you're one of those people who dont think Samsung stole icons from Apple - if you are, well... everything.

----------
stupendousman8 said:
You said it was a "choice." I pointed out the difference between choosing to market a product which requires specific technology and having the owner of that technology use their ownership to squeeze out competitors, and not being kept out the market and choosing to copy wholesale non-essential elements of another product in order to compete.

Samsung is apparently threatening Apple with the former, while Apple is suing Samsung for the latter. I believe that there is a big difference in the choices we are discussing.
Click to expand...

What did i say was a choice? How is that related to your points? Care to explain?
 
divinox said:
Uhm, Samsung hasnt infringed upon Apples green phone icon. For good reason too, as every other phone icon for a few decades have used the handset and the accent color green. (From what i've gathered, they have trademarked one though, one that - as stated - Samsung is not infringing upon).
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with this discussion. You are just adding FUD.

Since you have a hard time understanding: Sometimes the exact same (legal) act is considered wrong, sometimes its considered right. The common theme seems to be that when Apple is the "thief" its all good, and when Apple is the victim its all bad.
Click to expand...

That's not the theme. It's the stereotype. Is it a surprise that more people support Apple in a Apple-related forum? You are just trying to promote "hypocrisy by association." You keep bringing up irrational arguments unrelated to what is actually being discussing to create FUD.

No, none of the above is meant to imply that Apple broke any law by placing books on a virtual bookshelf-looking shelf.
Click to expand...

Except that was the specific claim that you were responding to.

Which essentially boils down to: Those who don't have the resources to protect themselves have only themselves to blame. Which is the point i made in my first post. As such, you are in support of a system that is inherently biased towards the "have-alots" and against the "have-nots", rather than a system that is intended to protect intellectual property as traditionally conceived (i.e. a right belonging to the creator of said property, rather than the entity that best manages to secure the rights to it).

It does, however, require resources to protect. Those without, de facto, have no protection at all (meaning, its FFA to steal from them).

Have you ever filed a patent? Have you ever protected a patent? On what grounds do you say that which you say? Further, resources are more than just cash.
Click to expand...

And now you have shifted the argument yet again. More money results in more protection under the law. Super. Not in dispute. Also, not what we were talking about.

(actually, you asked something different, something in the lines of: should X get resources from Y for...)
Click to expand...

I asked something different in a different post. :rolleyes:

And i simply responded: Nothing, as long as you're one of those people who dont think Samsung stole icons from Apple - if you are, well... everything.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply anything. You just meant "Nothing".
 
BaldiMac said:
Which has nothing to do with this discussion. You are just adding FUD.



That's not the theme. It's the stereotype. Is it a surprise that more people support Apple in a Apple-related forum? You are just trying to promote "hypocrisy by association." You keep bringing up irrational arguments unrelated to what is actually being discussing to create FUD.



Except that was the specific claim that you were responding to.



And now you have shifted the argument yet again. More money results in more protection under the law. Super. Not in dispute. Also, not what we were talking about.



I asked something different in a different post. :rolleyes:



Exactly. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply anything. You just meant "Nothing".
Click to expand...

1) Sigh. You wrote a post asking if Apple owed X anything. I, seeing that this is an open forum, responded to said quote with a conditional statement. That is how my post had anything to do with the discussion.

2) Stereotype, theme - potato, tomato. And no, naive as i am, i expect people to have brains. I know, as stated, i am naive - but i cant help it.

2.1) No, im not trying to promote hypocrisy by association. I have even made it explicit that no such implications have been made. Stop with your nonsense, please.

2.2) Answering a question raised by you, albeit in a conditional fashion, is hardly irrelevant.

3) Yes, to which i responded with a conditional claim, in no way implicating that you belonged in either corner. What is your objection here, really?

4) No, i have not shifted anything again. You asked for clarification, as you were unable to comprehend. I provided you with said clarification. You cant ask for X, and then rant about me providing you with X. At least not if you want to be taken seriously.

4.1) Basically, then - as stated by me in the first post already - according to you those who cannot protect themselves have only themselves to blame.

-- this is what i said in the original post. are you catching on yet? repeating myself is getting quite boring.

5) please provide me with a link to said post.

6) Well, it was implicated which group i belonged too. Thats about it. Rest is you being paranoid.


p.s. try to keep it short(er). this is getting boring.
 
BaldiMac said:
But isn't the contention that it is dishonest to have agreed to the RAND pool while withholding other patents that are essential to the standard? By pre-announcing this lawsuit without knowledge of Apple's implementation, Samsung is essentially admitting as much.
Click to expand...

Yes, pre-announcing against the iPhone 5 would make it seem so, and that's what Ericsson claimed as well.

Or perhaps Samsung contends that their IP was used without their permission as enhancements in the standards and chips that Apple is known to use.

We'll never know some of this, since many of these complaints get settled out of court and we miss out on the details.
 
divinox said:
1) Sigh. You wrote a post asking if Apple owed X anything. I, seeing that this is an open forum, responded to said quote with a conditional statement. That is how my post had anything to do with the discussion.

2) Stereotype, theme - potato, tomato. And no, naive as i am, i expect people to have brains. I know, as stated, i am naive - but i cant help it.

2.1) No, im not trying to promote hypocrisy by association. I have even made it explicit that no such implications have been made. Stop with your nonsense, please.

2.2) Answering a question raised by you, albeit in a conditional fashion, is hardly irrelevant.

3) Yes, to which i responded with a conditional claim, in no way implicating that you belonged in either corner. What is your objection here, really?

4) No, i have not shifted anything again. You asked for clarification, as you were unable to comprehend. I provided you with said clarification. You cant ask for X, and then rant about me providing you with X. At least not if you want to be taken seriously.

4.1) Basically, then - as stated by me in the first post already - according to you those who cannot protect themselves have only themselves to blame.

-- this is what i said in the original post. are you catching on yet? repeating myself is getting quite boring.

5) please provide me with a link to said post.

6) Well, it was implicated which group i belonged too. Thats about it. Rest is you being paranoid.


p.s. try to keep it short(er). this is getting boring.
Click to expand...

Here is what I was trying to discuss. Rodimus made specific claims that Apple stole from Delicious Monster in creating iBooks. I differentiated between legal copying and stealing IP.

Then, you claimed that I was implying that it was okay to steal from those without the resources to protect their IP. I was not implying anything of the sort. I was simply differentiating between legal copying and stealing (depriving of property rights).

There was also a small ethical discussion in which I asked what ethical responsibility Apple had to give Delicious Monster money in exchange for nothing. You responded with your non-sequitur about Samsung's app drawer.

Your discussion of Samsung and costs to protect IP were all tangential to the points that I made. If that's what you intended, then fine.
 
BaldiMac said:
Here is what I was trying to discuss. Rodimus made specific claims that Apple stole from Delicious Monster in creating iBooks. I differentiated between legal copying and stealing IP.

Then, you claimed that I was implying that it was okay to steal from those without the resources to protect their IP. I was not implying anything of the sort. I was simply differentiating between legal copying and stealing (depriving of property rights).

There was also a small ethical discussion in which I asked what ethical responsibility Apple had to give Delicious Monster money in exchange for nothing. You responded with your non-sequitur about Samsung's app drawer.

Your discussion of Samsung and costs to protect IP were all tangential to the points that I made. If that's what you intended, then fine.
Click to expand...

Maybe on that one case but when you start looking at others it goes to show you a pattern of behavior. Apple is pretty just as bad if not worse than other companies when it comes to stealing and coping.

Apple has a long history of doing stuff like that.

The bookshelf thing is no where close to as bad as the ripoff of Konfabulator.
Or the coping so much of iOS5.

Lets face it Apple was talking about themselves when they said 2011 was the year of the copycats.

What gets most people is how big of a hypocrite Apple is. They cry foul when anyone copies off them but turn around and are even more blatant about it.
 
Go away patent suits - I already have enough case studies without my prof "informing" us to look at another case study.
 
BaldiMac said:
Here is what I was trying to discuss. Rodimus made specific claims that Apple stole from Delicious Monster in creating iBooks. I differentiated between legal copying and stealing IP.

Then, you claimed that I was implying that it was okay to steal from those without the resources to protect their IP. I was not implying anything of the sort. I was simply differentiating between legal copying and stealing (depriving of property rights).

There was also a small ethical discussion in which I asked what ethical responsibility Apple had to give Delicious Monster money in exchange for nothing. You responded with your non-sequitur about Samsung's app drawer.

Your discussion of Samsung and costs to protect IP were all tangential to the points that I made. If that's what you intended, then fine.
Click to expand...

1) You did imply that, like it or not. And you havent backed away from it either.
2) Uhm, no. I responded with a conditional statement (which in every way followed logically. Are you sure you understand the phrases you are using?).

Then you started with your paranoid ********.

----------
stupendousman8 said:
That Samsung is free to chose to infringe on Apple's user interface and general design.
Click to expand...

Not what i said. Want to try again?
 
dba7dba said:
So LTD was lying?
Click to expand...

Look at how those pre-iPad "tablets" work. Use them. Then use an iPad.

Night and day.

Let's take just one of the examples provided by the person you asked the question of.

One of them looks like a Gateway Tablet PC.

http://www.mobiletechreview.com/notebooks/gateway_xp_tablet.htm

Not exactly a stellar user experience. It's the same thing with pre-iPhone "smartphones."

There's a reason why Windows Mobile died so quickly. A decade of MS mobile development, destroyed in only a couple of years. It wasn't because the platform shared so many similarities with the iPhone, LOL.

There's a reason pre-iPad tablets didn't sell and the iPad suddenly blew the doors off the market.
 
Last edited:
ct2k7 said:
They look the same
Click to expand...

They might have form factors similar to each other, but not to the iPad. Not to the iPad's construction, design, minimalism. It's a Maserati beside a bunch of thick, overweight, button-festooned, plastic-laden Yugos that looked like ass and worked the same.
 
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