Samsung's 'Infringe First and Stall as Long as Possible' Strategies Are Nothing New

[linuxcooldude]

That's what Apple is trying to do with its current prior arts patents. Apple is more interested in a ban than fine. Apple always pursue the ban option in every lawsuits. Why did Apple go this direction if they just wanted compensation? Apple wanted to kill Samsung via lawsuits/ban not through competition in the market.


If you are the owner (samsung) and Apple tells you they will pay 10 cents per device and then say you have to pay $40 per device for Apple prior arts patents, how would you feel? I would tell Apple to go fly kite. Apple is abusing the SEP to not pay. As simple as that. A thief using the broken law to justify stealing, that's what it is. Other companies are able to have deals with Samsung, so Apple holding out with ridiculous demands is the main culprit.

And they are prior arts. What rights Apple to demand for ridiculous amount based on prior arts? Apple is the robber here. It is like: " Either pay as I demanded or I sue the hell out of you in MY OWN COUNTRY WHERE THE JURY WILL FAVOR ME. "

I've already told you the reasons why. If Apple were to try to ban based on essential patents that they held would probably stopped just as quick.

You are trying to treat essential patents the same as regular patents and you can't always do that.

A thief using the broken law to justify stealing, that's what it is. Other companies are able to have deals with Samsung, so Apple holding out with ridiculous demands is the main culprit.

If you feel the law is unjust then thats where the problem lies, not with the people who follow it. Not sure why you would call someone a thief who are not technically not breaking the law.

Apple is abusing the SEP to not pay.

Some could say Samsung is using its essential patents unfairly for banning products. Considering such bans have been blocked several times in the past. So its all relative.

 

[mib1800]

I've already told you the reasons why. If Apple were to try to ban based on essential patents that they held would probably stopped just as quick.

You are trying to treat essential patents the same as regular patents and you can't always do that.



If you feel the law is unjust then thats where the problem lies, not with the people who follow it. Not sure why you would call someone a thief who are not technically not breaking the law.

Some could say Samsung is using its essential patents unfairly for banning products. Considering such bans have been blocked several times in the past. So its all relative.

Apple was found guilty of violating essential patents and guilty in the current case as well. Apple is no less guilty that samsung in this aspect. A thief is still a thief.

And don't say Apple is less or not guilty because the damages awarded against samsung is much higher or because of essential patents. What price Apple would have to pay if the president had not veto the ban? It will also be very high imdeed.

Using the large damage award to show Samsung is a bigger thief can't really hold up as courts around the world have thrown out those Apple patents.

 

[DarthMoops]

Good straw man argument. Let me clue you in to something: This is a tech site! People have been listing our gear in our signatures here (well I have since 2007, but on other sites before this) for years going back before these iOS devices. It provides context when I'm discussing things on the forum and forget to mention what it is that I have that I'm referring to. I actually have a career in design and photography, so they aren't toys. They're business expenses. They put food on the table for my wife and kid. I have to stay up on technology to make a living. And as I mentioned before, I only have the Xbox on there so that people don't think I'm a total Apple fanboy. I enjoy other technology too, especially my Xbox. It's an example of a company being innovative without completely ripping off Apple. What a concept!

If you go to edit your signature in your User CP, this is the example signature given by MacRumors: "24" Aluminum iMac, 2.8 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 750 GB HD ; 4 GB iPod nano". You're supposed to list your gear! Again, this is a tech site. Good grief.

I don't get why I'm a bad guy for owning technology that helps feed my baby, and listing it on a technology website, but this other guy is not considered a bad guy for thinking that technology should be developed regardless of all consequence. You people need to get your priorities straight. Wow. This is the last time I'm responding to this thread. The lack of common sense is killing me.

You're not a bad guy, just taking this way too seriously. I know many people list their Mac setup in their signature as this is a Mac site. However, your post in total read to me essentially like this "A man is more than his possessions...but just in case a man is not more than his possessions check out my killer Nikon rig!

 

[hchung]

The N900 could do multi-touch. Resistive has nothing to do with that.

The N900 could do multi-touch as well as the Android G1… which most engineers would say isn't actually multi-touch:
http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=35560

----------

No, it wasn't. Symbian had had that for years when the iPhone was released. Sure, coding for Symbian was quite painful, but again, what you wrote was nothing new.

What part of "Each of those things themselves isn't new, it's the combination of the three that was new, and therefore shifted the market." did you not understand?

Symbian certainly had a public SDK.
A reasonable set of foundation libraries for the SDK? Eh, as we both know, development was painful.
A desktop OS kernel? Not sure. The latter kernel, I recall was pretty nice, but don't remember anything about the old one.

A distribution network? I thought the only one was Ovi and that launched really really late?

----------

But being the first to release and popularize technologies in the consumer market doesn't give anyone the right of ownership of said technologies. Same for being the first to do it well.

Smooth implementation of existing technologies is more a matter of careful engineering than it is pure invention.

I think you might be bundling me into the wrong conversation. I never said that first to release nor first to popularize implies ownership. I was simply arguing that a well polished implementation is more important to influencing the industry than being the first implementation.

 

[zipa]

What part of "Each of those things themselves isn't new, it's the combination of the three that was new, and therefore shifted the market." did you not understand?

The part where you claimed the combination to be new, when something similar had existed for years before that. The concept of an app store wasn't new, Nokia had similar concepts since the turn of the century with their business services and Nokia One. Later with Symbian came loads of different "app stores" where you could download apps, and there were loads and loads of sites and services offering other JavaME-apps and other downloadable content as well.

Sure, none of that worked half as well as Apple's implementation, but Apple certainly didn't come up with anything new per se. They just polished the turd enough to truly make it shine.

 

[iMember]

Is this site now Appleinsider? Worst bait article I have seen in here in a long time.

Of course it's everyday news on Appleinsider, the most biased hate filled Apple site around.

Why do you think Macrumors users cares about what Android community thinks about Appleinsider?

----------

I get that you guys need to play to your audience, but to claim any level of journalistic integrity and publish a story with that title is just outright pathetic.

Of course Samsung copies. So does Apple, so does Microsoft, so does Activision, and Ford, and Toyota, and Lenovo, and Costco, and Boeing, and every single other company in the world.

I am in no way defending Samsung's actions nor am I suggesting they are defensible, but that title is insulting to Samsung, it's insulting to Apple, and it's insulting to your readers and your fans.

Your not defending Samsung? because to me it feels like you are defending Samsung!

 

[Michael Goff]

Why do you think Macrumors users cares about what Android community thinks about Appleinsider?

----------



Your not defending Samsung? because to me it feels like you are defending Samsung!

You get 'em! Only the Apple faithful's opinion on AppleInsider matters.

 

[sixrom]

Samsung is a barbaric company. Yet Apple still has business deals with them in some shape or form. It's time to cut the barbarians loose.

Apple can't survive without them.

One look at all the Samsung component parts Apple relys on to build iToys reveals the truth.

Samsung has been very good for Apple.

 

[hchung]

The part where you claimed the combination to be new, when something similar had existed for years before that. The concept of an app store wasn't new, Nokia had similar concepts since the turn of the century with their business services and Nokia One. Later with Symbian came loads of different "app stores" where you could download apps, and there were loads and loads of sites and services offering other JavaME-apps and other downloadable content as well.

Sure, none of that worked half as well as Apple's implementation, but Apple certainly didn't come up with anything new per se. They just polished the turd enough to truly make it shine.

You're going to have a to link us to this pre-2008 Symbian-platform Nokia phone with an integrated app store, on the phone, out of the box. Because I never heard of it. The last thing I recall being an early mobile dev was being smacked around with BREW licenses; another world of hurt.