Sidebar Sidebar
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'

As with most software patents, these included here are ridiculous.

I've bought each version of the iPhone since day one, and was extremely excited about iPhone 5 next month. I can't believe i'm saying this, but this is just so...ugly. I'll have to protest it the only way I really can, and switch to Android. The phone probably won't be as nice, but that's not the most important thing here in the long run.
 
wikus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly. While I enjoy using Apple products, you'd have to be a complete idiot to think this is good news for cunsumers.
 
The Free Peoples of earth Support you Sammy dont give up the Fight!

I think Apple need a little Lulsec/ Anonymous Love:cool:
 
Thought

Anyone else want some judge to order Samsung post the results of this decision somewhere on their website. I think it would be funny.

They couldn't even say, "Oops! My bad!," because it was willful.
They should say," We willfully stole from Apple and our products were still not as cool!"
 
Wait, doesn't Samsung make Apple parts?

Doesn't Apple use Samsung's infrastructure and technology on most Apple devices? OR does the actual manufacturing of iPhones and the latter? Seems like a broken home after this court battle. Oh well, Samsung was asking for it.
 
iEvolution said:
What does that have to do with anything? The fact a basic essential navigation tool can be patent is silly how does the iphone's popularity relate to ANYTHING I said?
Click to expand...

Was it a basic essential navigation tool before the iPhone came out?
 
If you don't know the difference between patents and trade dress, the legal differences, and the different standards of evidence, just don't even comment, please. That will cut down on the ignorant flamebaiting dramatically, and we'd really appreciate it.

If you find yourself tempted to accuse the jury for making the decision they did, based on evidence the jury was not allowed to see, please don't comment either. If you don't even know what the jury did and did not see, likewise please remain silent.

If you disagree with patent and trade dress law, and find yourself tempted to blame Apple for the current legal state of affairs, please hold back your remarks as they are not helpful.

If you find yourself wanting to take quotes from former jury members, and saying they are grounds for appeal or mistrial, instead of posting, please go elsewhere and educate yourself on the actual legal grounds for mistrials and appeals, and learn that nothing said by those jurors are relevant to Samsung's case.
 
DavidTheExpert said:
"Apple is likely to seek a tripling of the damage award based on rulings that Samsung's infringement was willful."

Ha! That is a pretty bold move on Apple's part, given that they were just awarded over a billion dollars. But Apple has always been a bold company. I don't see much chance of them succeeding in this motion, though, but then again Apple has a pretty damn good legal team.
Click to expand...

Apple didn't just pull the idea of tripling the damages out of thin air--it's a standard move that's built into the system that the judge can approve if it's found that the patent infringement was willful.
 
wikus said:
Damn near all the patents Apple got are frivolous.
Click to expand...

All patents and inventions seem frivolous... after they are published. This goes back to ancient times and the Renaissance (Brunelleschi and Da Vinci, et.al.)

Funny how you or your smart friends didn't sell a product or publish the idea beforehand if it was so obvious and good and profitable. Perhaps you just called yourself an idiot.
 
iEvolution said:
What does that have to do with anything? The fact a basic essential navigation tool can be patent is silly how does the iphone's popularity relate to ANYTHING I said?
Click to expand...

Just because Apple brings a technology to a phone that customers like doesn't mean that it is suddenly essential that every competitor have it.

Edit: and if it truly is essential, then it should be licensed, just like every actually essential patent related to wireless radios.
 
jj47 said:
Rounded icons is ridiculous as a patent however pinch and zoom was real innovation from Apple which they spent many of hours and money on R&D to create.

Completely sensible and jutifiable patent.
Click to expand...

Complete nonsense, pinch to zoom is the most practical and logical method of employing zoom on a mobile device. The fact that it is something that is there is a patent for is scary. This entire case was nonsensical at best.
 
jj47 said:
Rounded icons is ridiculous as a patent however pinch and zoom was real innovation from Apple which they spent many of hours and money on R&D to create.

Completely sensible and jutifiable patent.
Click to expand...

proven wrong multiple times. Kdarling who has work in multi touch since the 80's point out that pinch to zoom was pretty widely used in the industry as was a pretty obvious solution.

Just because Apple was the first company to make it popular in the consumer space does not change the fact that it is crapents they are using.
 
bsolar said:
Or maybe not, Samsung will surely appeal the ruling. Who knows what the appeal ruling will be? I only hope there will be a more competent jury
Click to expand...

If you think there's a jury on appeals, you probably should refrain from commenting on legal matters.
 
iEvolution said:
The fact a basic essential navigation tool can be patent is silly how does the iphone's popularity relate to ANYTHING I said?
Click to expand...

If it was so basic and essential and obvious, why weren't you and your mom and your dad using that navigation tool before the iPhone?

How did the PalmPilot and MS PocketPC vendors sell a single device (they actually sold many tens of millions of units) without a basic essential feature?
 
firewood said:
All patents and inventions seem frivolous... after they are published. This goes back to ancient times and the Renaissance (Brunelleschi and Da Vinci, et.al.)
Click to expand...

No, but software patents are, as they allow you people to patent concepts, rather than implementations.

Remember when Lodsys went after tons of app developers for infringing on their patent for in app updates? Was Lodsys protecting their innovation? Was their innovation at all obvious? Were they perfectly in their rights to sue, due to the fact they legally had a patent on file?

You're basically protecting a system that allows anyone to sue over anything.
 
To all those saying "this judgement will only stifle innovation and be bad for the consumer"...

Don't you think it could spur innovation? Look at WP7. It's UI is very different and is selling extremely well while adhering to other people's taste. This gives Samsung a chance to create something unique. I repeat unique.
 
chinesedemo said:
Complete nonsense, pinch to zoom is the most practical and logical method of employing zoom on a mobile device. The fact that it is something that is there is a patent for is scary. This entire case was nonsensical at best.
Click to expand...

Again: If it were so "logical", why did no one else have it before the iPhone? We've had touchscreen devices since the 1990s.
It's like saying the mouse is the most obvious input device to operate a graphical user interface.
 
iEvolution said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for anyone else, but the first time I used pinch and zoom was on an original iPhone, and I thought it was the most ingenious feature I'd ever seen on a cell phone. The idea that this wouldn't be a patent-able feature would never have crossed my mind. I would consider it to be a huge advantage over other methods of zooming on smartphone screens, but the idea that it's "essential" is laughable. Just because someone came up with a really clever way of doing something doesn't mean that everyone else can copy it because it's "essential".

Oh, and the automobile rearview mirror was patented by William P. Hammond in 1922, who presumably could have sued anyone that copied his invention for 20 years, at which point patents are generally considered part of the public domain.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=45...e=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=true
 
wikus said:
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.
Click to expand...


"When the iPhone debuted, it was widely criticized for having no buttons/keys. Now people think the iPhone’s design is “obvious.”
-Dan Frakes


He is exactly right. No one else took the risk to bet the company on changing the whole phone interface . Not one of the phone market leaders, not Nokia, MS, RIM, Samsung or Motrorolla. They were thrilled to be selling you the same old **** and had no motivation to change anything. How was that for the consumer?

Apple did. Apple was the only one that tried. They spent years developing and took the risk to bring it to market. It took an outsider with an entirely different take on things to bring fresh ideas to a stale industry.

And NOW, it is obvious? People thought the iPhone before it was announced would have a freaking click wheel. Thats how obvious the iPhone was to pundits and the phone industry.
 
Last edited:
jj47 said:
To all those saying "this judgement will only stifle innovation and be bad for the consumer"...

Don't you think it could spur innovation? Look at WP7. It's UI is very different and is selling extremely well while adhering to other people's taste. This gives Samsung a chance to create something unique. I repeat unique.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head. Nokia and Microsoft are at least being different and creating their own stuff which looks new and exciting. Samsung just have to find what they could do instead of looking at the iPhone for inspiration.
 
US laws don't match with those of EU, UK or Asia. I don't see then facing any problems apart from US (yea a few issues in Germany). I guess there is fundamental difference in how patent laws are viewed. Companies would do better to concentrate on China than any other place else. The biggest market and the fastest growing market. Companies that ignore the developing economies are bound to get stagnant in future.
 
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