Samsung Executive Calls Apple vs. Samsung Ruling 'Worst Scenario for Us'

[dalexa]

Samsung chose to copy rather than licence what was clearly apple innovations. Pinch to zoom, scroll bounce all these things are apple ideas no one did them before them and others should pay for the right to use them.

i need to say this again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2oMmCyiJZA

pinch to zoom is not an apple idea, it has been done before although not in a phone.

know all your facts before stating those things. most people like you will believe in those false statements and that's a major issue.

what apple did was gather some of the great ideas around and put it in a phone... and patent that. things that shouldn't be possible to patent were patented by them.


again. patents should be for the "how you get a result". the process to make things works and not what they do. if someone uses a different process for it then it should be possible for them to use it

 

[Macist]

I don't really know if this is a good outcome or not.

Back in the 80s/90s, Microsoft, who just churned out rubbish versions of others' stuff, killed off all sorts of competitors that were creating much better tech. At one time it looked like you would have no choice but to have a Windows PC - like it or lump it. If MS had been hit hard early on perhaps there'd be at least a couple more good platforms out there - a better market for innovation.

Samsung's pre-iPhone phones were just unbelievably crap. Has the company changed? If the become this century's Microsoft would we be putting up with the same sort of dismal rubbish with no real choice?

Than again, patents of obvious things like pinch to zoom? Stuff that!

 

[Renzatic]

Back in the 80s/90s, Microsoft, who just churned out rubbish versions of others' stuff, killed off all sorts of competitors that were creating much better tech. At one time it looked like you would have no choice but to have a Windows PC - like it or lump it. If MS had been hit hard early on perhaps there'd be at least a couple more good platforms out there - a better market for innovation.

Ahh, revisionist history at it's best.

Back in the 80's/90's, MS was considered a top tier brand, and Windows 95 quite well received. If they were doing nothing but making cheap, crappy knockoffs off the competition products, they never would've found themselves in a position to create a monopoly.

 

[Kr00]

i need to say this again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2oMmCyiJZA

pinch to zoom is not an apple idea, it has been done before although not in a phone.

know all your facts before stating those things. most people like you will believe in those false statements and that's a major issue.

what apple did was gather some of the great ideas around and put it in a phone... and patent that. things that shouldn't be possible to patent were patented by them.


again. patents should be for the "how you get a result". the process to make things works and not what they do. if someone uses a different process for it then it should be possible for them to use it

So sad to be you, but the patents office, a jury, and 1 billion other reasons say Apple have the rights, and have been awarded damages for samsuck infringing. You would be happier if you just accepted the courts decision and move on with your life. Then you'll have no reason to troll Apple forums, will you. A win win situation. Nothing you believe or say will change the facts. Samsuck stole, cheated, lied and have been exposed. Remember, the samsuck executives are REELING over this. Good!!

 

[Renzatic]

Samsuck? Really? Yeah, you're a veritable well of nuanced arguments and verbal poise, aren't you?

 

[spinko]

to good

Damn near all the patents Apple got are frivolous. Its disgusting seeing how they got patents on such loose and obvious pseudo technologies, the whole system is broken.

This isnt bad for just Samsung, its bad for the consumer as well.

Perfectly right ! The only beneficiaries are the lawyers and Co. We the consumers and innovation ifself will suffer. One billion for zoom-pinch a couple of icons on a home screen and some similarities of the design ?? The whole thin is full of hypocrisy.

 

[Kr00]

Samsuck? Really? Yeah, you're a veritable well of nuanced arguments and verbal poise, aren't you?

A deserved monica. They suck. Sorry to make you cry, but hey, you come to an Apple forum. Don't like the heat…… yada yada yada. Why you come here is obvious. I will refer to samsuck as samsuck, every day, for each and every post. Get use to it. Or you can leave, your choice.

 

[Blorzoga]

The fact pinch and zoom as well as a grid payout with rounded icons can be patented this is completely nuts.

Excuse me while I patent the rear view mirror and sue any car maker that dare use it.

I dont see how samsung is supposed to get around pinch and zoom, its an essential component to a touch screen.

Thats right, it's essential. Apple patented it and is entitled to charge others who want to copy it and use it in their products.

 

[bsolar]

So sad to be you, but the patents office, a jury, and 1 billion other reasons say Apple have the rights, and have been awarded damages for samsuck infringing.

The patents office is a joke, everyone knows they are overworked, underfunded, lack the expertise for a proper assessment of most patents, and they don't look that much for prior art because they don't have the resources to do that. Their own statistics confirm this: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ers-show-they-get-things-wrong-all-time.shtml

The jury you mention decided to skip evaluation of the prior art because they wanted to come to a decision quickly, this among a few other questionable issues which you can find described here: http://asia.cnet.com/rounding-up-the-apple-versus-samsung-trial-62218453.htm

You would be happier if you just accepted the courts decision and move on with your life. Then you'll have no reason to troll Apple forums, will you. A win win situation. Nothing you believe or say will change the facts. Samsuck stole, cheated, lied and have been exposed. Remember, the samsuck executives are REELING over this. Good!!

Nothing will change the facts... until the appeal happens. Everyone knows this issue will most likely reach the Supreme Court one way or the other since not Samsung nor Apple would "just accept the courts decision" if against their interests.

 

[samcraig]

Why do you keep using the S3 when it wasn't in the lawsuit ?

I can't speak for him - but perhaps because Samsung has already shown how they are making a phone different enough than the iPhone.

It one thing to show a concept video of something. Its another thing to put the technology is a mass produced device.

That doesn't negate the fact that Apple doesn't have a patent for pinch and zoom. Have you read the actual patent?

A deserved monica. They suck. Sorry to make you cry, but hey, you come to an Apple forum. Don't like the heat…… yada yada yada. Why you come here is obvious. I will refer to samsuck as samsuck, every day, for each and every post. Get use to it. Or you can leave, your choice.

The fact that you choose to express yourself in this manner is more telling about you then it is about the poster you're speaking of.

Thats right, it's essential. Apple patented it and is entitled to charge others who want to copy it and use it in their products.

Have you read the actual patent?

 

[Ubuntu]

A deserved monica. They suck. Sorry to make you cry, but hey, you come to an Apple forum. Don't like the heat…… yada yada yada. Why you come here is obvious. I will refer to samsuck as samsuck, every day, for each and every post. Get use to it. Or you can leave, your choice.

That's incredibly immature. Yes, it's an Apple forum, a place for discussion. Using a derogatory moniker just makes your argument look tenuous. I'm happy about this ruling, but Samsung doesn't suck, they're doing incredibly well and will probably continue to do so. Just had to say this as your post makes you seem like a 10 year old fanboy. A person who can express a mature argument that I might not agree with or an immature person who resorts to name calling? I'll have the former, thanks.

 

[bsolar]

Since the samsuck trial, I've come out to celebrate and to rub it in the faces of all the tiny brained fandroid trolls. This IS an Apple forum right? Not an Apple hate forum.

You can be an Apple fan without this immature behaviour. Also being an Apple fan shouldn't mean just thinking Apple is always right. I love their products, I don't like that Samsung made some phones so similar to the iPhone, but I still believe most of the patents involved in the trial should be invalidated given the prior art provided, and that the jury made a mess.

 

[Northgrove]

How can they seriously be surprised?

During the trial, it both became apparent Samsung had beeing looking at Apple designs due to their internal "design crisis" as well as neglecting Google's warnings on hardware similarities. Not to mention everything that didn't even come to light, like internal discussions and memos among Samsung staff. Many "**** that"'s were given during the development of the Samsung Galaxy S.

Yes, the ruling turned out to be pretty harsh, but Samsung has wildly pushed ahead while people have watched and said "umm, your designs and stores look a lot like Apple's". It is no coincidence that Samsung is in trouble now and not Nokia, Microsoft, or BlackBerry.

 

[pubwvj]

I think you underestimate the size of Samsung, and no triple damages will not plunge Samsung stock that low, they prob make more than 3b a quarter.

No, not at all do I underestimate and you're missing the details. It is not just the triple damages, which come out of profits, not gross, but that combined with the injunction against sales and the lost time to develop new products and compete without the edge they stole. This will be clear to investors who will flee Samsung stock which in turn will drive it downward. Then a wise investor picks it up at the bottom. Apple is a wise investor. As Samsung said, this is the "Worst Scenario for" them.

 

[Northgrove]

The fact pinch and zoom as well as a grid payout with rounded icons can be patented this is completely nuts.

Excuse me while I patent the rear view mirror and sue any car maker that dare use it.

I dont see how samsung is supposed to get around pinch and zoom, its an essential component to a touch screen.

Pinch & zoom is just one of the more logical ways of a zoom gesture. All you're doing is increasing and lowering a zoom factor, nothing else. You're increasing and decreasing a single number that is later input in a formula. So Samsung could instead do a two-finger pull-up/down or whatever. It's certainly not essential to a touch screen. It's only essential to make people used to Apple devices feel at home. Of course, now they're shooting themselves in their collective feet because they did it like Apple before, so now they might alienate their own users if changing this. But that's their problem. Had they developed their own gesture designs from the start, this wouldn't have been a problem.

 

[spazzcat]

Damn near all the patents Apple got are frivolous. Its disgusting seeing how they got patents on such loose and obvious pseudo technologies, the whole system is broken.

This isnt bad for just Samsung, its bad for the consumer as well.

Please tell me how stopping Samsung from coping Apple is bad for the consumer....

 

[Kr00]

Hmm

Upset are we? You didn't get the point. Even though google may have filed for the patent, it was in prior use BEFORE it was granted. I really don't care when, if or who has the patent. You seem to think that because they have it, they can sue anyone? I suggest you read up on how patents work, and how prior use can expunge any claim of infringement. Samsuck argued that point in their counter suit, but lost. They couldn't prove prior use.

InfoLock and Intelliscreen came out late 2008, early 2009 (prior use). Before android. Your ridiculous statement about google suing Apple over notifications centre is just that. And this upsets you. Sorry, I'll email you a tissue (oh god he's gonna cry again, better stop with the sarcasm).

 

[Purant]

Please tell me how stopping Samsung from coping Apple is bad for the consumer....

No, please tell us how it's good.

 

[Renzatic]

Uh oh.

 

[Purant]

Upset are we? You didn't get the point. Even though google may have filed for the patent, it was in prior use BEFORE it was granted. I really don't care when, if or who has the patent. You seem to think that because they have it, they can sue anyone?

No, that's what Apple thinks. Did you read how in the trial they disregarded claims of prior art?

 

[drblank]

I bet they wish they took Apple's licensing offer. Idiots.

No kidding. Samsung didn't want to work things out, so that's their problem.

Lesson learned, don't try to copy someone else's product.

Now the judge can decide if they were willful, which i think there is enough evidence, and slap Samsung with a 3X settlement.

Personally, if I were the judge, I would instruct Samsung they have to pay 3X for willful intent, NO APPEALS. Ban applicable products and tell Samsung not to pull this "copy cat" products anymore and to come up with a different product that isn't trying to copy Apple to the point where it lands them in court again.

No one likes having to sue someone else. It's a pain the rear, it's time consuming and it creates animosity between both parties.

Personally, I think there should be restrictions on component suppliers from going into the same line of business or to make a competing product as a customer. Conflict of interest.

 

[pubwvj]

I think you underestimate the size of Samsung, and no triple damages will not plunge Samsung stock that low, they prob make more than 3b a quarter.

"With the Korea Stock Exchange having just opened for trading for the first time since the ruling, Samsung's stock is currently trading down 7%. Apple's stock rose nearly 2% in after hours trading Friday following the ruling."

Ipso facto fungi.

 

[slattery69]

Upset are we? You didn't get the point. Even though google may have filed for the patent, it was in prior use BEFORE it was granted. I really don't care when, if or who has the patent. You seem to think that because they have it, they can sue anyone? I suggest you read up on how patents work, and how prior use can expunge any claim of infringement. Samsuck argued that point in their counter suit, but lost. They couldn't prove prior use.

InfoLock and Intelliscreen came out late 2008, early 2009 (prior use). Before android. Your ridiculous statement about google suing Apple over notifications centre is just that. And this upsets you. Sorry, I'll email you a tissue (oh god he's gonna cry again, better stop with the sarcasm).

Geez, what is with all these fandroid trolls getting all hissy since samsuck lost the court case. Get a life already.

Isn't intelliscreen a lockscreen info app though, it's not pull down notifications which are quite different

 

[samcraig]

No kidding. Samsung didn't want to work things out, so that's their problem.

Lesson learned, don't try to copy someone else's product.

Now the judge can decide if they were willful, which i think there is enough evidence, and slap Samsung with a 3X settlement.

Personally, if I were the judge, I would instruct Samsung they have to pay 3X for willful intent, NO APPEALS. Ban applicable products and tell Samsung not to pull this "copy cat" products anymore and to come up with a different product that isn't trying to copy Apple to the point where it lands them in court again.

No one likes having to sue someone else. It's a pain the rear, it's time consuming and it creates animosity between both parties.

Personally, I think there should be restrictions on component suppliers from going into the same line of business or to make a competing product as a customer. Conflict of interest.

Like Apple not wanting to work out terms for Samsung's FRAND patents - so they went ahead and used them anyway?

P.S. If manufacturers of components couldn't enter the same LOB or have competing products - everyone loses. What are the odds a component manufacturer would shoot its own foot and sell their component if they can assemble a product themselves? Products would also cost a lot more.

 

[nick_elt]

No, not at all do I underestimate and you're missing the details. It is not just the triple damages, which come out of profits, not gross, but that combined with the injunction against sales and the lost time to develop new products and compete without the edge they stole. This will be clear to investors who will flee Samsung stock which in turn will drive it downward. Then a wise investor picks it up at the bottom. Apple is a wise investor. As Samsung said, this is the "Worst Scenario for" them.

Yeh I just saw the stocks today and no1 has paid any1 a dime yet... Not looking good for samsung if it is indeed tripled. But I dont think in a million years would apple buy samsung nor would it be allowed. If theycould just buy the micro processor part then maybe.

----------

"With the Korea Stock Exchange having just opened for trading for the first time since the ruling, Samsung's stock is currently trading down 7%. Apple's stock rose nearly 2% in after hours trading Friday following the ruling."

Ipso facto fungi.

Yeh I saw that. Ouch! Still stock price shouldnt affect their short term cashflow, they are big enough to ride it out.