What does that mean? Do the pictures selected exist within the device? Why would Apple focus on anything but the similar portions? I am honestly confused.KnightWRX said:
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.
Samsung Already Planning to Target iPhone 5 with Patent Lawsuits
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
well, apple is all about look and feel. samsung is simply trying to 'borrow' those looks and that feel by producing products which do look almost exactly the same as apple's (packaging, promotional materials and so on). that's what it was all about when it comes to injunction of galaxy tab and certain galaxy phones.
what samsung is trying to do is block iphone in korea based on their korean patents.
i hope i made myself clear now. another lawsuit against htc is also related to feel - scrolling mainly. i've been following these suits since nokia vs apple. there's lot of info out there, you just need to dive in to understand what's going on.
----------
nope, not for copying. samsung is trying to enforce their patents in korea for wireless technology. what we need to wait for is the fact if samsung offered license to apple and if yes, if apple rejected that license(s). these patents might also fall into FRAND agreements. we have no details yet of what samsung is trying to do here.
Mmmm, no, injuction in Germany is not because Galaxy Tab looked like ipad, but because it looke like the Community Design and packaging or promotional materials had nothing to do.
And phones didn't infringed any look claim.
And you know that Samsung is suing Apple about patents not only in South Korea but in USA, Germany, France, etc. so, I repeat, is Apple pathetic for copying Samsung technology?
Even if Samsung offered any type of licensing, Apple first copied it, didn't they?
Maybe in korea, but not in the USA. No American judge will dare hinder an American company over a frivolous block by a Korea company. Many lawmakers close to the issue have said "Not in America"
My Obama wants his iP5
A company isn't required to license their patents unless (a) they've already agreed to so via a collective standards committee or (b) they bought a lot of essential patents for the sole purpose of strangling their competition.
Only the Nokia case has so far involved F/RAND licensing, and that's because they had agreed to those terms beforehand, in a group while working with other companies and contributors on GSM and WiFi standards.
Many Nokia and Samsung patents were not part of those agreements, and thus can be used, if wished, to force royalties from others. Or even withhold them altogether, an action which Apple usually wants to take with their own patents.
Only the Nokia case has so far involved F/RAND licensing, and that's because they had agreed to those terms beforehand, in a group while working with other companies and contributors on GSM and WiFi standards.
Many Nokia and Samsung patents were not part of those agreements, and thus can be used, if wished, to force royalties from others. Or even withhold them altogether, an action which Apple usually wants to take with their own patents.
yep, that's correct, but you should check who started these worldwide lawsuits, it was samsung
Source? Because Samsung suits are all countersuits, can you show me a link where it is shown that Samsung was the first to sue Apple and not Apple the first to sue Samsung?
who cares who started it. Or who the next is to sue. If something was done "illegally" it was done illegally and its up to the lawyers, courts, judges and companies to work out.
The finger pointing (by those not involved) and without ALL the facts - is silly.
So, you're saying that an american company can infringe patents and be punished when the other company is foreign?
----------
The one which has to research is you
some links for you:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/apple-vs-samsung-list-of-all-19.html
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/apple-reinforces-its-frand.html
you can also try techcrunch or techme
----------
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for proving the point that was Apple which started the suits
And perhaps the 12 old one is the one that accuse the others having the wrong facts
Samsung was gong to sue Apple using Infineon baseband chip. Apple now uses Qualcomm chip instead. How does Samsung sue Apple now?
They pull out an old movie prop. Sammy's lawyers are all about entertainment. See, Samsung makes great TVs, and Samsung's lawyers do things that would be great *on* TV. There's a connection.
Certain angles and lighting can make things look like something when in fact they don't when you actually hold the device in your hand. Case in point, the "Chrome bezel" around the Galaxy S i9000/Vibrant which is quite darker in real life than the 3GS' and doesn't look at all like it.
Or the pictures resized to make the devices appear to be identical in size when they aren't...
etc.. etc..
----------
Sorry mate, if you make a claim, it's your job to back it up.
i wish i was 12 again
everything was so much simpler and nicer. i'm not gonna argue whatever your findings are, don't have time for it.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are right that Apple brought up overall look and feel, packaging included, in their German complaint, but the court ignored all that and only decided around the registered Community Design.
Whereas the Netherlands court said that the basic design (flat, rounded corners) was a logical one (and Germany agreed with that assessment), the Dusseldorf court differed by saying it deserved protection anyway simply _because_ it was so minimalistic, versus other known tablet designs.
You know, hate to admit it publicly, but I agree. What we need is reunification.
That would be it for the Capital of Kimchi for 20 years.
Actually, FRAND licensing *can't* require cross-licensing, because it requires Fair, Reasonable *and* Non-Discriminatory terms. If someone new is coming into the industry they might not have patents to cross-license. Refusing to license to them would not be 'Non-Discriminatory'. Allowing them to license without cross-licensing, but requiring it of other licensees would not be 'Fair'.
Note: Just to be clear, the standards body *can* (and frequently does) allow/require cross-licensing within the standards group as part of building/determining the 'pool' essential patents. What you can't do, is require cross-licensing of unrelated patents in order to be able to license the 'required/essential patents' to implement the standard and still fall within FRAND terms.
Last edited:
so basically the general reaction is like this:
---
apple sues others -> GOOD stuff! yes. patents/laws are absolutely necessary, apple has all rights. yay! go appple
others sue apple -> patent laws sucks. patent trolls have nothing better to do. company X needs to die!
---
can we leave it up to the court to decide?
---
apple sues others -> GOOD stuff! yes. patents/laws are absolutely necessary, apple has all rights. yay! go appple
others sue apple -> patent laws sucks. patent trolls have nothing better to do. company X needs to die!
---
can we leave it up to the court to decide?
The concept of "essential patents" only applies to patents intrinsic to practice a given industry standard, as recognized by a standardization organization. There is no law requiring this offer; it is up to the standardization organizations to enforce it by accepting or rejecting the standard.