Samsung Promises to Fight on in Internal Memo, Seeks to Overturn Galaxy Tab Injunction

[viewfly]

That review document was not about direct copying. It was about looking for areas of improvement.



Likewise, Apple's own internal documents revealed that their Senior VP for iOS used a 7" Tab, and decided that Apple needed to get into that market because the experience on the Samsung product was actually pretty good.

View attachment 354690

They're both the same idea: you look at your competition to improve your own products.

No, the apple email and the review docs from Samsung are vastly different. There is no patent on screen size under discussion. The review docs support willful intent. The samsung product demonstrates infringement of particular patents. that is why the award was so high: infringement and willful intent to do so.

Looking for areas of improvement is okay. But if you improve on another's patent, you need to license that patent first so you can use your new patent. Or trade if the party is willing and wants your improvement. This is where samsung failed and that is how the system has worked for decades.

 

[Mark Booth]

What we need is MASSIVE and I mean MASSIVE patent reform.

When I got my first iPhone (the original), things like the bounce-back scrolling and tap to zoom were decidedly cool features. What incentive does any individual or company have to spend money and time on creating things like that if any idea-stealing company can come along and use the feature on its product?

The minute you take away an individual's or company's ability to legally protect their inventions, THAT is when we will all realize a crises in innovation.

BTW, it's my experience that people that hate the fact that Apple has patents on these technologies are generally "consumption" types while people that understand the importance of Apple's patents are generally "creative" types.

Mark

 

[viewfly]

When I got my first iPhone (the original), things like the bounce-back scrolling and tap to zoom were decidedly cool features. What incentive does any individual or company have to spend money and time on creating things like that if any idea-stealing company can come along and use the feature on its product?

The minute you take away an individual's or company's ability to legally protect their inventions, THAT is when we will all realize a crises in innovation.

BTW, it's my experience that people that hate the fact that Apple has patents on these technologies are generally "consumption" types while people that understand the importance of Apple's patents are generally "creative" types.

Mark

Yes, this! It does seem to follow. And the ones that complain of being bored of an OS, seem to enjoy staring at their screens instead of actually doing anything productive with such wonderful 'tricoders' and communicators we have today.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

When I got my first iPhone (the original), things like the bounce-back scrolling and tap to zoom were decidedly cool features. What incentive does any individual or company have to spend money and time on creating things like that if any idea-stealing company can come along and use the feature on its product?

The minute you take away an individual's or company's ability to legally protect their inventions, THAT is when we will all realize a crises in innovation.

BTW, it's my experience that people that hate the fact that Apple has patents on these technologies are generally "consumption" types while people that understand the importance of Apple's patents are generally "creative" types.

Mark

Going to point out that pinch to zoom is an example of a crapent as it was what what has been in use since the 80's in the industry. It is what you call an obvious solution aka not something that should be able to get a patent on. Go watch minority report. Pinch to zoom was used there.

 

[Mark Booth]

Going to point out that pinch to zoom is an example of a crapent as it was what what has been in use since the 80's in the industry. It is what you call an obvious solution aka not something that should be able to get a patent on. Go watch minority report. Pinch to zoom was used there.

Apple's patent on "pinch-to-zoom" is not simply the first pinch-to-zoom to occur with the device. Rather, Apple's patent is in regard to how the device reacts to a second (or successive) pinch-to-zoom contact and the time interval between the first and the second pinch-to-zoom.

In other words, Apple's pinch-to-zoom patent has nothing to do with the process used in the 80s or in the 2002 movie Minority Report.

Read: http://gizmodo.com/5663171/apple-gets-a-limited-pinch+to+zoom-patent

Mark

 

[OTACORB]

Going to point out that pinch to zoom is an example of a crapent as it was what what has been in use since the 80's in the industry. It is what you call an obvious solution aka not something that should be able to get a patent on. Go watch minority report. Pinch to zoom was used there.

Cat, I've read a half dozen of your post and replied. Really? Are you really this totally biased against Apple that you can't even read documentation about FRAND and the actual patents that Apple holds. You are just spewing crap you are reading elsewhere which is totally BS.

Apple has actually defended FRAND in some of the lawsuits, but then you'd have to actual read the lawsuit information to find that out. When you are the big boy everyone sues you. Ask Microsoft, they have been there.

Did you read the transcript of the testimony in this trial where Apple straight up offered a lower rate to Samsung for licensing its patents because Apple viewed them as a supply partner. Oh I guess you didn't bother to read that part.

Just making **** up DAWG!

 

[Macman45]

This type of back and forth litigation helps nobody, diverts companies attention from what they are best at, and in the end only the lawyers get rich.

Samsung, who are not exactly broke, should leave this alone , pay up and move forward, The same applies to Apple's constant litigious behaviour as well. Get on with doing what you do best.

 

[samcraig]

Did you read the transcript of the testimony in this trial where Apple straight up offered a lower rate to Samsung for licensing its patents because Apple viewed them as a supply partner. Oh I guess you didn't bother to read that part.

LOL. You obviously either didn't read it well or pay attention to the numbers and terms. The deal that Apple was offering in exchange for Samsung's $$ AND patent licenses was ridiculous and Samsung was smart in not accepting the terms.

 

[Winni]

LOL. You obviously either didn't read it well or pay attention to the numbers and terms. The deal that Apple was offering in exchange for Samsung's $$ AND patent licenses was ridiculous and Samsung was smart in not accepting the terms.

Yes, but the problem here on macrumors.com is that nobody cares that Apple tried to go Don Corleone on Samsung.

It would be interesting to see the details of the deal Apple made with Microsoft. I doubt that Microsoft would have to pay 20 bucks per device and have to give up their own patents for free - like Apple demanded it from Samsung.