JLumme Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I'd bet that this gets overturned in an appeal, which Samsung has already filed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brahma Bull Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Boo. Poor Samsung. Oh well, Apple will dig their own grave soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I'd bet that this gets overturned in an appeal, which Samsung has already filed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 You know apple won that case right, which is what this thread is all about. Samsung argued that but were unsuccessful... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Are you aware of the inconsistencies in the ruling? Are you aware of the jurist who has a patent who may have influenced the other jurors from a position of relative authority on patents? Do you understand that this decision was made by jurists, not by technology professionals? You keep droning on with this "Apple won" bull like it means anything. To anyone who pays attention to technology, or has a farking brain, this decision is terrible and rather exposes the need for copyright reform than exposes Samsung for a copycat. Want to see a copycat? Now spare us your ignorant drivel. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightHawkSniper Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Apple created the tablet market via the iPad. A lot of apple ideas have been stolen over the years by other companies, and I'm glad they took a stand. We need companies like apple to continually innovate. The mouse you're using was also invented by apple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 damn computer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 You're killing me, all they did was buy the rights to those 'ideas'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 It's called patent infringement. It's not just copying the outside appearance of something, which is what you seem to think it is. My computer screen look like my TV too and it wasn't made by apple. I can also play a game of find two products that look identical. My DVD looks like an LP....copyright infringement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 You're argument earlier was that they looked all but identical now it's...what exactly? There is very little innovative about Apple's products. In fact many of the internal components are made/invented by OTHER companies. Samsung actually IS one of those companies funnily enough. What Apple's strengths are: -Software/hardware integration. Not sure how you patent that...(and I'm guessing one of those things that needs changing in patent laws, though I don't want to speak for Satan). -Design esthetic... which as you can see is not truly their own anyway and you just argued wasn't important. -Lat but certainly not least...the thing they are vastly "best" at. Marketing. Pretty sure you can't patent that either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 You're saying they have no patents. In that case, you should call the courts immediately since they've made a terrible mistake. I think their patents are related to software and hardware integration, and I don't think it's more difficult than having a copyright on a software. My biggest beef, which i didn't know how to convey until the article did it for me, is this: '"trade dress," a claim to the overall look and feel of a device.' "In fact many of the internal components are made/invented by OTHER companies. Samsung actually IS one of those companies funnily enough." Not relevant. Just because a company outsources it's component manufacturing is not a reason to steal their patents. If anything, this makes Samsung look worse, since this is how they could've easily had access to apple's ideas (not that it's hard to take apart a phone for people who know what they are doing). Lastly, the only problem with our current IP laws with relation to things like phone technology is that they are too slow. By the time a patent is successful, the technology is likely to become obsolete, or stolen. Government needs to invest and speed up the process of IP relating to phones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 But you just stated that the problem wasn't that they look alike...? So is it or isn't it? And again, if it IS in fact important, I ask you, how different can you make a slim case, touch screen computer look? It's a screen with a slim computer on the back. That's not patent-able anymore than a laptop or a chair or a car or anything else that serves a common function. You can patent YOUR design so someone can't make an EXACT replica but if someone makes something merely similar with it's own esthetic, software etc, you're SOL. THAT is what's happened here. I'm not stating they have no patents, I'm stating that they don't cover what they're suing for. And yes the court/jury have made a mistake which I suspect will be overturned at some point. Samsung hasn't stolen anything. They saw a market for mouse traps, built a better one than the company they were supply parts to and now the guy who built the original, inferior trap is all pissy because less people want to over-pay for his crappier one. The only reason Apple is "good" with software/hardware integration is because it's a closed, controlled system. As Samsung uses Android, an OPEN system, they can not claim that Samsung has infringed on it it's software either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 It's called patent infringement. It's not just copying the outside appearance of something, which is what you seem to think it is. My computer screen look like my TV too and it wasn't made by apple. I can also play a game of find two products that look identical. My DVD looks like an LP....copyright infringement. I don't like trial by jury as much as the next guy, but I doubt higher courts see it differently. It's pretty easy to defend your patents, and Samsung won't have much of a case saying that copying is the norm in the industry. Also since you think copyright reform is necessary, please tell me what changes you think are required and what is wrong with the current system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 You're saying they have no patents. In that case, you should call the courts immediately since they've made a terrible mistake. I think their patents are related to software and hardware integration, and I don't think it's more difficult than having a copyright on a software. My biggest beef, which i didn't know how to convey until the article did it for me, is this: '"trade dress," a claim to the overall look and feel of a device.' "In fact many of the internal components are made/invented by OTHER companies. Samsung actually IS one of those companies funnily enough." Not relevant. Just because a company outsources it's component manufacturing is not a reason to steal their patents. If anything, this makes Samsung look worse, since this is how they could've easily had access to apple's ideas (not that it's hard to take apart a phone for people who know what they are doing). Lastly, the only problem with our current IP laws with relation to things like phone technology is that they are too slow. By the time a patent is successful, the technology is likely to become obsolete, or stolen. Government needs to invest and speed up the process of IP relating to phones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 It's not just the outside appearance; it's the outside appearance plus the fact they have the same function, plus the fact they same "internal" appearance (GUI in certain parts) etc. It's a combination of things. This is what annoys me the most: "During the month-long trial, Apple presented Samsung internal reports as evidence the company was deeply motivated to create products that mimicked the design and function of the iPhone" Here's two things apple has patented that were stolen: "pinch-to-zoom function on touchscreens and the “bounceback” effect when a user flicks a photo toward the end of the screen" "laptop or a chair or a car " Car parts were patented, as were some car designs. Not sure about laptops. If no one has "invented" the chair until now and you did, you would be able to patent it and you'd have the rights to it for a specific time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbo Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Not surprised to see the big American company winning. Good for them, Apple really needed the money. Three cheers for squashing innovation. USA! USA! USA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 It's not just the outside appearance; it's the outside appearance plus the fact they have the same function, plus the fact they same "internal" appearance (GUI in certain parts) etc. It's a combination of things. This is what annoys me the most: "During the month-long trial, Apple presented Samsung internal reports as evidence the company was deeply motivated to create products that mimicked the design and function of the iPhone" Here's two things apple has patented that were stolen: "pinch-to-zoom function on touchscreens and the “bounceback” effect when a user flicks a photo toward the end of the screen" "laptop or a chair or a car " Car parts were patented, as were some car designs. Not sure about laptops. If no one has "invented" the chair until now and you did, you would be able to patent it and you'd have the rights to it for a specific time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Not sure what he would say but it's pretty clear that what is happening in a lot of large tech companies is a race for and accumulation of patents and lawyers rather than a race to develope new and better products. You have companies that have huge libraries of patents that they may never use that are only there to stifle the competition or at best try to troll for royalites for products you never really made. It's not rocket science to determine that what needs to happen is to up the standard for what is determined to be new or a significant upgrade and to lower the exclusive use time for those that are found to be genuinely new products. Fact of the matter is there is actually very little genuinely new and innovative almost everything is just a tweak upon a tweak. Allowing whoever has the biggest fleet of laywers to paper out every possible tweak and then litigate the competition away is clearly not a good model for either business or consumers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Great example of things you shouldn't be able to patent - a generic user interface item. Is there a giant library of ways to touch a touchscreen or shake the phone to produce different effects that are going to be a race to patent? Where do you draw the line on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Great example of things you shouldn't be able to patent - a generic user interface item. Is there a giant library of ways to touch a touchscreen or shake the phone to produce different effects that are going to be a race to patent? Where do you draw the line on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.