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 Executive Calls Apple vs. Samsung Ruling 'Worst Scenario for Us'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And he didn't mention the lawsuit in his post.
You didn't answer the question . Are you just trolling ?
Which gets to the real problem. For all the angst on the blogs about this court ruling being bad for consumers, what folks are loosing sight of is that the real threat to innovation is Google giving Android away for free. That will eventually drive everyone else out of the market as well as drive all Internet traffic (and personal info) to Google, giving them a very consumer damaging monopoly. In the long run, the free (ad supported) software model is a very bad thing for everyone. Even more so when the software in question infringes other folk's IP.
The best outcome would be if Apple can use the strength of this ruling to force a negotiated agreement with Google whereby they start charging reasonable license fees for Android instead of giving it away to monopolize advertising revenue. Although it will probably take more than even a ban on Samsung phones to make that happen - Apple should bring back and update Sherlock to threaten at least a small portion of Google's core business.
It's been an interesting few days in patent law....
..with Friday's win for Apple over Samsung, and then more good news for Apple from the ITC.
ITC rules in favor of Apple on three Motorola patents
Somewhere someone at MotoGoog is saying "DOH!"
..with Friday's win for Apple over Samsung, and then more good news for Apple from the ITC.
ITC rules in favor of Apple on three Motorola patents
This review is the latest move in the Apple versus Motorola (and, by proxy, Google) ITC complaints started last year. In the initial ruling, the ITC found most of Motorola's patents to be standards-essential, meaning they should not be able to use them as weapons in legal battles.
As a result of the hearings, Motorola and Google are being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission for violations of fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing of standards-essential patents.
As a result of the hearings, Motorola and Google are being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission for violations of fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing of standards-essential patents.
Somewhere someone at MotoGoog is saying "DOH!"
I can't believe you're saying it either. You mean to tell me that you are willing to get a Samsung phone and know that it probably won't be as nice but, on principle and your moral highground, you're willing to get yourself into a 2-year commitment? I don't believe and I'm not buying it.
No one is that stupid.
That's why they call it innovation... Apple made pinch zoom work, why can Samsung try to do something different/better?
Um..the Galaxy series is great and in many way surpass the iPhone. Just...be prepared to lose support in 3..2..1...
Like I did with my Vibrant..but I've since rooted it!
I don't understand why the Sumsung executives are in shock. I mean, yes, you got to pay $1B (unless they win on appeal) but they make a good product. Common guys, apple should you the way, now start using your own brain. Stop feeling sorry for yourselves and start innovating.
Another thing I don't understand..why so many trolls around here? I like apple products and I respect what Samsung/ Google bring to the game, but why do people have to hang around here telling us that apple sucks. OK, you have a right to your opinion, go spread it where people care what you say and agree with you. Simple.
Another thing I don't understand..why so many trolls around here? I like apple products and I respect what Samsung/ Google bring to the game, but why do people have to hang around here telling us that apple sucks. OK, you have a right to your opinion, go spread it where people care what you say and agree with you. Simple.
There's a simpler solution..... you license the patent. That's what Samsung should've done.
Or just "license" .... License the stuff that you like and innovate ontop of the stuff you don't like.
As far as I understand...they tried to...but apple set insane prices. Its probably cheaper for Samsung to appeal everything, get most of it thrown out of court, and pay the fine then it is for them to pay apple.
While the Galaxy S3 may not be subject to the trade dress issue, it still employs software features that Apple has patented (and defended in this case). Therefore, the form factor of the Galaxy S3 may not change, but it will have to change under the hood, if Samsung doesn't pony up for Apple's patent licenses.
Not sure how that makes the Galaxy S3 "better".
For as smart as Android users think they are....posts like yours don't help your cause.
I've seen so many similar posts on various forums since the verdict it's laughable. It's really not that hard to figure out. Let me try to explain to you.
Apple isn't saying to other mfgs, "don't make rear view mirrors"...they're saying "don't make your rear view mirrors like OURS".
Pinch to Zoom is NOT an Standards-Essential patent (nor should it be). It's a Utility patent. Sure, it's the most intuitive way to zoom on a touch screen but there are other ways for designers to accomplish this if they innovate (not duplicate). How about some sort of slider-bar that appears on the screen to zoom in? Not as nice as pinch to zoom but they don't own the patent, Apple does.
Same goes for Tap to Zoom, it's a Utility patent not a Standards-Essential one. There are other ways to accomplish this.
Make sense?
As for the grid icons with rounded corners...this is a Design Patent...again not a Standards-Essential one. This means that from a design (i.e. "look") standpoint, company B can't copy company's A designs. Apple isn't saying don't use icons...or don't use a grid...they're saying don't make your icons and grid look like ours!
Make sense?
I'd be happy to go over the other patents too but hopefully you get the idea now.
Even my 14 year old can understand the difference.
Compromise
If Apple, were to do anything here's the fairest thing to do:
For each sold model of the phone 10% of the sale per infringement should be awarded to Apple, with no barring of sales. (Phones that violated all five patients would owe 50% of the sale)
For future sales of these models ( I believe a few are still being sold ), a 25% Royalty should be awarded.
To me that sounds worthy. That sounds disciplinary. But it doesn't limit anyones choice.
If Apple, were to do anything here's the fairest thing to do:
For each sold model of the phone 10% of the sale per infringement should be awarded to Apple, with no barring of sales. (Phones that violated all five patients would owe 50% of the sale)
For future sales of these models ( I believe a few are still being sold ), a 25% Royalty should be awarded.
To me that sounds worthy. That sounds disciplinary. But it doesn't limit anyones choice.
Dear Samsung,
If you continue on this course of action, we'll be exercising the penalty clauses in our contracts. As a result, you will be the ones paying for those parts which we'll now be sourcing from your competitors. If this is not the outcome you desire, please rethink your position. You have 1 week in which to respond.
Sincerely,
Apple Legal
How do you know Apple's terms were "insane"? I have yet to see what the actual terms were being offered.
As far as patents go, if they aren't FRAND, then the holder can ask for a higher rate, since they aren't "essential", merely desirable.
I'm curious. Is this supposed to be an example of a grid of colorful icons with rounded corners? Or are you so fixated on one aspect of a multi-aspect design patent that you're incapable of recognizing the difference?
You would rather have 1 person, a judge, who could be politically influenced, or influenced by businesses who have a vested interest in the cases outcome, give a ruling than 9 ordinary citizens? It's a lot easier for 1 person to make an unfair judgement than it is for 9 jurors to come up with a judgement. That's why we have several judges on the supreme court and not just 1, because they are influenced by the outside.
Ipaq with WinMo 5.0~! I like how you got all upset and cursing after I pointed you to some spec sheets and post some screen shots.
Apple's licensing rates for Samsung were revealed in the trial: $30 per phone and $40 per tablet, with possible discounts:
The Apple example that surprised everyone was their claim to a royalty of $6 ($30 x 80% discount) even if Samsung made a non-touch Windows phone:
FRAND patent holders aren't required to have cheap rates, though. Some of them are actually pretty high, starting at over 3% of each device's retail price for Qualcomm's IP.
(The trick is, the rate can drop to virtually zero if you cross license and/or buy their wares, which is what most companies do.)
Last edited:
It is a design as to how the operating systems functions and was very specifically designed down to the physics of what happens if you go to far in either direction. They spent years designing and perfecting it. If it was so obvious it would have been done. So it has everything to do with it. If they didn't do it you wouldn't know about it. Just because you want a droid device to have it doesn't make it right.