Tim Cook Addresses Apple Employees After Lawsuit Victory

[Rogifan]

It's not about who is selling which products, we are talking about patents, thus about inventions and innovations.

Apple were the first company to introduce multi-touch to mobile phones. But multi-touch was around for decades, and so was the "pinch to zoom" gesture.

They have no right to patent it just because they've used it in a phone.

Apple (Fingerworks?) patented their implementation of multi touch. Whether you agree with them being granted those patents or not, they were. And this case wasn't about whether those patents were valid or should have been granted in the first place but about if Samsung infringed on them.

Also, who cares how long something has been around if it isn't being used in products that are being sold to consumers (i.e. implementation). If multi touch and pinch to zoom were around for 40 years how come Motorola, Nokia, Palm, RIM, Sony Ericsson, etc. didn't bring it to the mobile phone first?

 

[Icaras]

IE and Microsoft have nothing to do with this. It's absolutely irrelevant.

Samsung is dominating, and that's what bothers Apple.

It's absolutely relevant because you brought up the subject of monopoly. What else to compare than the biggest tech monopoly trial of our time? And nowhere do the two instances compare.

 

[viacavour]

What are you talking about?

The patent does not contain any low-level technical implementation of handling that gesture. It simple covers that gesture. No matter how you implement it, you will infringe the patent.

That is the essence of patent trolling.

Yes, but that's because they perfected the pinch to zoom scheme. The earlier project didn't get it to work right (Too laggy !). That's probably why they didn't proceed to patent it.

Amazon patented simple things like one-click shopping. And companies like Apple licensed the tech too.

 

[Bezetos]

Apple (Fingerworks?) patented their implementation of multi touch. Whether you agree with them being granted those patents or not, they were. And this case wasn't about whether those patents were valid or should have been granted in the first place but about if Samsung infringed on them.

Yes, the patents were granted. And that's the problem.

Also, who cares how long something has been around if it isn't being used in products that are being sold to consumers (i.e. implementation). If multi touch and pinch to zoom were around for 40 years how come Motorola, Nokia, Palm, RIM, Sony Ericsson, etc. didn't bring it to the mobile phone first?

Well the American patent law should care and stop companies patenting some inventions that were around for years and introduced to a new "platform".

 

[Rogifan]

IE and Microsoft have nothing to do with this. It's absolutely irrelevant.

Samsung is dominating, and that's what bothers Apple.

And this will stop Samsung from dominating? Hardly.

 

[Frixo Cool]

I am very happy about it. It's very clear that in this case Apple is the inovator and Samsung is the plagiator. Justice has been done.

 

[Bezetos]

Yes, but that's because they perfected the pinch to zoom scheme. The earlier project didn't get it to work right (Too laggy !). That's probably why they didn't proceed to patent it.

Again, lag has NOTHING to do with the patent! Again, there is no technical implementation in the patent. Again, it just covers the gesture. Again, it does not matter how you implement the gesture (lagless or not), you will infringe the patent.

Amazon patented simple things like one-click shopping. And people like Apple licensed the tech too.

I don't like that patent either.

 

[viacavour]

Samsung is dominating, and that's what bothers Apple.

That would be incorrect. Samsung didn't acknowledge Apple's value. That's what's bothering them.

If Samsung had licensed the tech from Apple based on a fair price, Apple would be very happy for Samsung to flood the market with entry and mid level phones as well.

Apple know that they can't take the entire world. Phone is a part fashion item.

 

[Rogifan]

Yes, the patents were granted. And that's the problem.


Well the American patent law should care and stop companies patenting some inventions that were around for years and introduced to a new "platform".

But that's not what this trial was about. The jury wasn't ruling on the patent system or whether these patents should have been granted to Apple in the first place.

 

[viacavour]

Again, lag has NOTHING to do with the patent! Again, there is no technical implementation in the patent. Again, it just covers the gesture. Again, it does not matter how you implement the gesture (lagless or not), you will infringe the patent.


I don't like that patent either.

That would be your personal opinion.

If the earlier team couldn't get pinch to zoom to work right, and they didn't patent it. Then they can't complain when Apple did.

The rest of the world may think it's easy after the fact, but they didn't work on the system. So they may have to license the tech instead of lamenting about it, or use it without paying.

 

[Rogifan]

Again, lag has NOTHING to do with the patent! Again, there is no technical implementation in the patent. Again, it just covers the gesture. Again, it does not matter how you implement the gesture (lagless or not), you will infringe the patent.

If you say any implementation of pinch to zoom is infringing on Apple's patent how are other mobile phones able to use that technology? Are they all paying Apple a license fee? Because the claim I always hear from Apple haters is that other companies license their patents but Apple doesn't.

 

[Winni]

Were Apple fans. I love all my Apple products, but I am now done with this company that is trying to sue there way into a monopoly. I will keep what I have, but will not be purchasing anything new from them. I know I will get negative comments since I didn't give Apple praise, and the faithful do not look past the symbol.

I stopped being an Apple fan a long time ago. I like some of their products but always hated the company's arrogance - and the fact that arrogance is such an important part of their business model.

Anyway, I sold my last Mac already a week ago, and I doubt that I want to fuel their litigation engine by buying any more of their products.

Do svidanja, towaritschtdc

 

[gladoscc]

Greedy apple. I'm buying Android over Apple products now. Why don't Coca Cola sue Pepsi because the color of their soft drinks are the same? Why don't TV manufacturers sue each other for similar design?

Fact is, you can't make a smartphone attractive in any other way other than a glass rectangle with rounded borders. you can only differentiate software side and Android has always being shining with innovation years before iOS included them.. heck google needs to patent voice actions, background wallpaper, notification center and much more and then sue apple for THEIR copying!

 

[Icaras]

I stopped being an Apple fan a long time ago. I like some of their products but always hated the company's arrogance - and the fact that arrogance is such an important part of their business model.

Anyway, I sold my last Mac already a week ago, and I doubt that I want to fuel their litigation engine by buying any more of their products.

Do svidanja, towaritschtdc

So what better time to waste your time without any Apple products? Go engage in an Apple forum, that's what! Go you!

 

[viacavour]

If you say any implementation of pinch to zoom is infringing on Apple's patent how are other mobile phones able to use that technology? Are they all paying Apple a license fee? Because the claim I always hear from Apple haters is that other companies license their patents but Apple doesn't.

Apple does license its technologies.

I think in some cases, they just let people go. They haven't sued Sony for any of these infringements. Sony products generally look apart from others. So it's easy to tell it's not an Apple phone or tablet.

OTOH, Samsung tried to look as close to Apple product as possible. Even Google management wrote to Samsung to complain about it.

 

[slattery69]

i dont think apple has a patent on pinch to zoom , there patent is based on a specific set of actions which is time linked,
from memory its you pinch to zoom then you can pinch to zoom again with in a set time scale.
so there patent isnt pinch to zoom in the broad sense which is why other companies can use it. its a bit deeper than just pinch to zoom
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/13/apple-awarded-limited-patent-on-pinch-to-zoom/

the link is a brief over view of it, not sure if this is one of the patents samsung lost as i can remember all the numbers

 

[Winni]

This is very good overall and shows the major flaw of all Asian culture -- no creativity! They just try to copy, treat their citizens as serfs and overwhelm competition in volumes. Japan lost when we invented a weapon they could never imagine and we nuked them.

This time it did not come to military action and only civil. I hope Apple buys Samsung outright, fire their exec board and have a few Korean American ex-patriots runs the show over there.

I almost had to throw up when I read this.

 

[Bezetos]

That would be your personal opinion.

If the earlier team couldn't get pinch to zoom to work right, and they didn't patent it. Then they can't complain when Apple did.

Do you even know what patents are?

They protect innovations.

Apple introduced none in that case.

Patents are not some stupid badge of honour "Awww good job Apple, you've implemented pinch-to-zoom so well! Here, have this patent, so that every other companies who uses pinch-to-zoom will now have to pay you!"

----------

If you say any implementation of pinch to zoom is infringing on Apple's patent how are other mobile phones able to use that technology? Are they all paying Apple a license fee? Because the claim I always hear from Apple haters is that other companies license their patents but Apple doesn't.

Well you tell me! I don't know why Apple is not suing other companies over "pinch to zoom", but read the patent and see how vague it is.

----------

But that's not what this trial was about. The jury wasn't ruling on the patent system or whether these patents should have been granted to Apple in the first place.

Of course it wasn't. I'm just expressing my opinion regarding the US patent system and how it allows such exploits.

 

[Daisybookworm]

Legal and Moral

The law is something intended to make people/companies responsible for their actions. Apple appears to have achieved that.

But well, may Apple crow and take the moral highground - Apple needs to sort out the moral issues of their treatment of employees in producing its products - wow, reduced hours to 60 hours a week, phew what a relief. And may be even 40 hours a week.

So, in taking the moral highground, Apple naturally use the $1B awarded towards employee needs.

 

[Icaras]

Do you even know what patents are?

They protect innovations.

Apple introduced none in that case.

Then I'm very happy you don't run the US patent laws. Many people would disagree with your distorted view for what's not innovative.

 

[Daisybookworm]

The less reported news...

The verdict came the same day a South Korean court ruled Apple and Samsung infringed on each other's patents on mobile devices, awarding damages to both technology giants and imposing a partial ban on product sales in South Korea.

 

[gladoscc]

The verdict came the same day a South Korean court ruled Apple and Samsung infringed on each other's patents on mobile devices, awarding damages to both technology giants and imposing a partial ban on product sales in South Korea.

yeah.. of course samsung copied apple but apple copied off samsung and android too

 

[viacavour]

i dont think apple has a patent on pinch to zoom , there patent is based on a specific set of actions which is time linked,
from memory its you pinch to zoom then you can pinch to zoom again with in a set time scale.
so there patent isnt pinch to zoom in the broad sense which is why other companies can use it. its a bit deeper than just pinch to zoom
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/13/apple-awarded-limited-patent-on-pinch-to-zoom/

the link is a brief over view of it, not sure if this is one of the patents samsung lost as i can remember all the numbers

I think that's the continuous pinching to zoom part. 915 may be a related but different one.

 

[Daisybookworm]

Reports

http://profit.ndtv.com/News/Article/apple-wins-1-billion-in-patent-case-against-samsung-309884

http://profit.ndtv.com/News/Article/sweeping-apple-win-but-samsung-set-for-bounce-back-309892

 

[viacavour]

Do you even know what patents are?

They protect innovations.

Apple introduced none in that case.

Patents are not some stupid badge of honour "Awww good job Apple, you've implemented pinch-to-zoom so well! Here, have this patent, so that every other companies who uses pinch-to-zoom will now have to pay you!"

Apple did a good job implementing techniques to make pinch to zoom work. It is a series of small innovations, but together they make a big difference to the user experience.

It doesn't mean they need your permission to call this an innovation.