Luongo Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Using your example, they can create better motors and fridges (assuming the original patents on them expired) but they can't just steal the apple door handle and put it on their fridges, because they are patented. The point is that Samsung fridges wouldn't sell if they didn't have apple door handles, and they know it, which is why they stole it in the first place and had strategy meetings about copying apples design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Am giving examples. How about the door handle of a washing machine or rectangular unibody shapes of camera? Do wires have patents too? How about bags or pants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I would like to see you back up your statement with some proof (which is impossible). That's one hell of a leap in logic to go from infringing on patents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Lol It's pretty easy to do when you steal someone else's idea. If there is an injunction, I will bet you will never buy another Samsung phone, and be forced to go back to the "archaic UI structure and outdated hardwares." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 No, there is process to having something patented. Obviously, Apple was able to patent it's ideas because they were different enough. You wouldn't have a galaxy if they didn't steal apple's patents, and you won't in the future.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 You should maybe tell that to Apple too, which stole from Google. So its okay for Apple to steal ideas but if another company takes some of Apple's ideas and make it 100X better is wrong. I want consumers to have more choices yet you want one company, Apple, to make a lot of money and leave the consumers in the dust. Do you have Apple shares? Is that why you defend Apple like a religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 You wouldn't have an iPhone if they didn't steal ideas from Palm and Windows mobile. You wouldn't have an iPad if they didn't steal ideas from Microsoft. Am sure the Galaxy lineup will survive, don't you worry about that. With the appealing process and the fact that most of the bans might only be for the US market, we will be seeing more Samsung Galaxys in the future much to your chagrin. I bet you will be crying again when Samsung smashes iphone 5 in terms of specs and techs. Pretty soon Google will overtake most of the smartphone market and Microsoft will cut into some of that Apple's profit margins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 No but what Samsung did is wrong, and I don't like it when people do something wrong (especially when it's SO obvious) and try to get away with it. I put myself in shoes of a person who has just been stolen from, and it annoys me a little. What exactly did apple steal from Google? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Ummm lets see...notification center and voice search are some of the notable examples. The fact that you are defending a corporation like that and praising them like they are some kind of demi gods or angels that can do no wrong is pretty disturbing. Apple has stole ideas and patents many times during their history and they will keep doing it. Apple is just like all the other corporations and none of them are angels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 It won't be "bans." It'll be an order to stop using the technology, and I doubt Samsung wants to leave the US market altogether. When the comply, the Galaxy phones won't be apple clones, and will have to be entirely new phones (without anything apple patented within them). I won't be crying because I have more important things in my life to worry about than phones, but you'll learn that once you get a little older. The only reason I care about this is because it's such an obvious infringement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 No company is entirely innocent, but the case we were was talking about tech's being stolen from apple, which is why I was defending apple. When apple is stealing techs from other companies, I'd hope they lose their case as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrison Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I don't feel like Samsung stole Apple's ideas, I feel it's the other way around. Damn Apple is so greedy, it's just ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 using the colour white or black is patentable? as is the use of rounded square application buttons? lmao, what the hell was the jury thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 using the colour white or black is patentable? as is the use of rounded square application buttons? lmao, what the hell was the jury thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killa Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I'll just leave this here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 using the colour white or black is patentable? as is the use of rounded square application buttons? lmao, what the hell was the jury thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luongo Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 That's not even my opinion. That's from the case, and that was presented in evidence by apple. Here it is: Apple, which sued Samsung last year, is leaning heavily on the South Korean technology firm's internal strategy documents to prove Samsung deliberately copied the iPhone. "Samsung was the iPhone's biggest fan," said Harold McElhinny, Apple's lead trial lawyer, during closing arguments on Tuesday. "They tried to compete with it, and when they couldn't, they copied it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luongo Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 The jury is going by the rules of US patent law.. there's your culprit, and thus problem, with how Apple can patent things they didn't create, and can patent excessively general concepts and sue people for it, as well as buy companies and their patents of general concepts and sue over that too. Those who are saying that these general concepts are "stolen" from Apple (hi unknown234823423423) obviously haven't bothered digging past the superficiality of jury verdict headline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoaltenderInterference Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I've read up on the jury in the Apple vs. Samsung case, and how the instructions were either not needed, or misinterpreted. The foreman influenced the entirety of the jury by not fully understanding the concept of prior art, that the software on Apple's side (the patents regarding the bounce back and pinch-to-zoom) and how it "could not be placed into the processor on the prior art", which would mean that they are "not interchangeable" and therefore invalidates the patent. However, prior art does not have to exist in any processor, but can at it's lowest form be a piece of paper describing the idea. The prior art that Samsung presented to invalidate Apple's bounce-back patent ('381 patent) of 2007 was the DiamondTouch table developed in 2001 by Mitsubishi ERL. The DiamondTouch table had two relevant pieces of software: Fractal Zoom, an application allowing users to manipulate images using multiple fingers, and Tablecloth, which allows users to pull an image down a window, snapping back upon release. In all honesty, I don't support the fact that these companies are so freely being "inspired" by other companies ideas, but I don't support what Apple is doing at all, because they masquerade themselves as protectors of integrity and genuine ingenuity, when they could not be further from that. In many ways, they are worse, if nothing else because they have the audacity to try to monopolize the marketplace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.