Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Samsung loses patent dispute with Apple


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
184 replies to this topic

#91 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 28 August 2012 - 01:17 AM

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.


Really....?


Engelbart received patent US3,541,541 on November 17, 1970 for an "X-Y Position Indicator for a Display System".[9] At the time, Engelbart envisaged that users would hold the mouse continuously in one hand and type on a five-key chord keyset with the other.[10] The concept was preceded in the 19th century by the telautograph, which also anticipated the fax machine.

Just a few weeks before Engelbart released his demo in 1968, a mouse had already been developed and published by the German company Telefunken. Unlike Engelbart's mouse, the Telefunken model had a ball, as it can be seen in most later models until today. Since 1970, it was shipped as part and sold together with Telefunken Computers. Some models from the year 1972 are still well preserved.[11]

The second marketed integrated mouse shipped as a part of a computer and intended for personal computer navigation came with the Xerox 8010 Star Information System in 1981. However, the mouse remained relatively obscure until the 1984 appearance of the Macintosh 128K, which included an updated version of the original Lisa Mouse. In 1982, Microsoft decided that because no one had come up with a good way to use Microsoft Word, they would create first PC-compatible mouse. Microsoft's mouse shipped in 1983, beginningMicrosoft Hardware.[3] In 1984 PC columnist John C. Dvorak stated the mouse as a reason the Macintosh would fail.[12]


Stop trolling you Apple fan boy.

Posted Image


#92 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,065 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 28 August 2012 - 03:49 AM

Fair enough...but here's how you obtain things legally:

"During an interview, he says "SRI patented the mouse, but they really had no idea of its value. Some years later it was learned that they had licensed it to Apple for something like $40,000"

This is similar to what the courts are making Samsung do...Samsung..start inventing, or paying others when copying their products.

In your Apple fanaticism you overlooked the fact that patents have been becoming extremely generalised, every tablet and smartphone maker is guilty of taking ideas from others. The US patent system has become an utter mess where almost anything even previously invented and not previously a patent can be patented, and more time is spent suing over patents (and buying companies to attain their patents) than making new technology. The intent of doing this is the same reason AT&T, Verizon, etc. fight municipal broadband so vehemently.. it's an anticompetitive tactic that allows the company engaging in the patent war to be as least innovating as possible and (primarily) squatting on others' innovations relying on litigation through a mediocre patent system to bring in $$$ while at the same time maximizing control over a market -- competitors lose out big but the biggest losers are consumers.

Edited by zaibatsu, 28 August 2012 - 03:58 AM.


#93 Xbox

Xbox

    Formerly Lups

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,840 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 11

Posted 28 August 2012 - 10:29 AM

Apparently the Samsung Galaxy S2 is being banned from sales following this case. The S3 wasn't affected so I don't see why they would target the S2 though. By the time the appeal is made, the S2 will be an out dated phone anyways.

As much as anyone hates apple, They do have a point. Companies need to try making their own damn product unique and not copy Apple.

Edited by Henrik Sedin, 28 August 2012 - 10:30 AM.

2yo50sh.jpg

small.pngGM - STHS                                  Sig Cred to -Vintage Canuck-

 

 


#94 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 28 August 2012 - 10:43 AM

Really....?



Stop trolling you Apple fan boy.


The comment you're referring to has already been corrected. Even if you didn't invent something, licencing it serves the same purpose, which is obtaining it legally. If you had bothered to read a few responses down, but I'm guessing you did and still felt you could get brownie points for correcting something which was already corrected by someone else. Kudos.

The only thing I own from apple is an iPhone; don't know if that makes me a fanboy.

Edited by unknown33429, 28 August 2012 - 10:51 AM.

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#95 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 28 August 2012 - 10:48 AM

In your Apple fanaticism you overlooked the fact that patents have been becoming extremely generalised, every tablet and smartphone maker is guilty of taking ideas from others. The US patent system has become an utter mess where almost anything even previously invented and not previously a patent can be patented, and more time is spent suing over patents (and buying companies to attain their patents) than making new technology. The intent of doing this is the same reason AT&T, Verizon, etc. fight municipal broadband so vehemently.. it's an anticompetitive tactic that allows the company engaging in the patent war to be as least innovating as possible and (primarily) squatting on others' innovations relying on litigation through a mediocre patent system to bring in $$$ while at the same time maximizing control over a market -- competitors lose out big but the biggest losers are consumers.



You're trying to rationalize something which is illegal but benefits you. Patents don't last forever (at least the ones I'm most familiar with), and the company that creates something new should have the right to earn some profit from it before everyone else gets access to it. It's not anti-competitive; it actually promotes competition.

If companies can't patent things, they are less likely to invest in creating them.

Apparently the Samsung Galaxy S2 is being banned from sales following this case. The S3 wasn't affected so I don't see why they would target the S2 though. By the time the appeal is made, the S2 will be an out dated phone anyways.

As much as anyone hates apple, They do have a point. Companies need to try making their own damn product unique and not copy Apple.


Apple still gets the money. But more importantly, if there is an injunction and depending on the length of the patent, the galaxy S4 may have to look like an original phone and not an iPhone clone.

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#96 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,047 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 28 August 2012 - 10:57 AM

You guys missed the point. A company should be able to protect what it creates for at least a little while; otherwise, there is no incentive to create things.

Apple did create the first tablet did they not? While you can argue a tablet is just a bigger phone, or a touchscreen computer, the fact that every single tablet look like the iPad is a little annoying. It seems a little dishonest when other companies just blatantly copy the design of something, and then try to argue it's different. FFS look at the Samsung Galaxy; it's an iPhone clone if I've ever seen one.

A window is a window is a window....not relevant.

What is your definition of intellectual property? Because it appears Samsung has broken the governments definition...


Freaking Apple fan-boys... :rolleyes:

No, as has been stated NUMEROUS times, Apple did NOT create the tablet.

Also, tablets/smartphones are basically slim case touchscreens. How exactly do you make that look vastly different? It's a freaking screen with a shallow case behind it. It's no more a patent infringement than two brands/models of cars. You don't see those companies suing because someone else had the "audacity" to connect an engine to four wheels, a steering wheel and surround it with a body, windshield and give them seats to sit on, do you?

Apple had a great "mouse trap", then Samsung built a better one. Now it's Apple's turn to see if they can build an even better one. THAT is competition. THAT is how innovation occurs. Not frivolous patent lawsuits because someone improved on your idea (which they can't even fully claim).

They're acting like a bratty, spoiled child, not the great, innovating technological pioneers you admire them for.

Edited by J.R., 28 August 2012 - 10:59 AM.

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#97 Luongo

Luongo

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,742 posts
  • Joined: 21-June 06

Posted 28 August 2012 - 11:07 AM

Apparently the Samsung Galaxy S2 is being banned from sales following this case. The S3 wasn't affected so I don't see why they would target the S2 though. By the time the appeal is made, the S2 will be an out dated phone anyways.

As much as anyone hates apple, They do have a point. Companies need to try making their own damn product unique and not copy Apple.


Apple is not this pioneer of the tech world that people think they are. In very fact, most of their designs for their products are "inspired" by other designs from other tech firms, and probably are infringing upon patents themselves. The difference is that Apple is the big monster corporation and you are simply not going to win against them. In real life, Goliath kicks David's ass every single time.

Apple ripped off Sony for the design of the Iphone. Take a look.
http://www.pcworld.c...nspiration.html

#98 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,065 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 28 August 2012 - 11:16 AM

Apparently the Samsung Galaxy S2 is being banned from sales following this case. The S3 wasn't affected so I don't see why they would target the S2 though. By the time the appeal is made, the S2 will be an out dated phone anyways.

As much as anyone hates apple, They do have a point. Companies need to try making their own damn product unique and not copy Apple.

Have you noticed many "new" technologies?

Touch screens aren't a new concept, neither were tablets or smartphones.. they just have particulars which Apple successfully got patented through government, and because they got the general part of a tablet concept patented suddenly Samsung infringes on something Apple didn't create. Contrary to the last response given to me, this is NOT creation, and the only investment being made is through patents and litigation.. it's amazing how much this smacks people in the face yet people really believe this is about protecting Apple creations..

#99 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 28 August 2012 - 11:18 AM

Freaking Apple fan-boys... :rolleyes:

No, as has been stated NUMEROUS times, Apple did NOT create the tablet.

Also, tablets/smartphones are basically slim case touchscreens. How exactly do you make that look vastly different? It's a freaking screen with a shallow case behind it. It's no more a patent infringement than two brands/models of cars. You don't see those companies suing because someone else had the "audacity" to connect an engine to four wheels, a steering wheel and surround it with a body, windshield and give them seats to sit on, do you?

Apple had a great "mouse trap", then Samsung built a better one. Now it's Apple's turn to see if they can build an even better one. THAT is competition. THAT is how innovation occurs. Not frivolous patent lawsuits because someone improved on your idea (which they can't even fully claim).

They're acting like a bratty, spoiled child, not the great, innovating technological pioneers you admire them for.


Lets not resort to name calling, I already said I own one apple product.

The lawsuit isn't frivolous, and I don't think you know the definition of a frivolous lawsuit (it's not any lawsuit you don't like). It's a successful lawsuit, which is going to go through some appeals.

"Apple had a great "mouse trap", then Samsung built a better one. Now it's Apple's turn to see if they can build an even better one. THAT is competition. THAT is how innovation occurs. Not frivolous patent lawsuits because someone improved on your idea (which they can't even fully claim)."

Yeah, after a company has spend million investing in something, someone else should just be allowed to copy it immediately. What a great incentive to create new things? I should be able to sell pirated DVD's and it's up to the movie companies to come up with new movies. You have a very good grasp on innovation work. The IP laws are there for a reason.

"You don't see those companies suing because someone else had the "audacity" to connect an engine to four wheels, a steering wheel and surround it with a body, windshield and give them seats to sit on, do you?"

When someone comes up with something, they patent it and have rights to it for a finite time before other have access to it. The car patents are long expired, and anyone can make those parts. when cars were new, a lot of their parts were patented...so i don't get your argument.

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#100 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 28 August 2012 - 11:22 AM

Apple is not this pioneer of the tech world that people think they are. In very fact, most of their designs for their products are "inspired" by other designs from other tech firms, and probably are infringing upon patents themselves. The difference is that Apple is the big monster corporation and you are simply not going to win against them. In real life, Goliath kicks David's ass every single time.

Apple ripped off Sony for the design of the Iphone. Take a look.
http://www.pcworld.c...nspiration.html


You know apple won that case right, which is what this thread is all about. Samsung argued that but were unsuccessful...

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#101 JLumme

JLumme

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,106 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 09

Posted 28 August 2012 - 11:34 AM

I'd bet that this gets overturned in an appeal, which Samsung has already filed.

#102 The Brahma Bull

The Brahma Bull

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,224 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 08

Posted 28 August 2012 - 11:36 AM

Boo. Poor Samsung.

Oh well, Apple will dig their own grave soon enough. :)


#103 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 28 August 2012 - 11:42 AM

I'd bet that this gets overturned in an appeal, which Samsung has already filed.


I doubt it. Apple has the patents, and what Samsung seems to argue is copying tech is the norm in the industry (thus the sony example). Not a very good case.

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#104 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 28 August 2012 - 11:46 AM

You know apple won that case right, which is what this thread is all about. Samsung argued that but were unsuccessful...


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?

Posted ImagePosted Image
Posted ImagePosted Image

Now spare us your ignorant drivel. Thank you.

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#105 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 28 August 2012 - 11:57 AM

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.


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?

Edited by unknown33429, 28 August 2012 - 12:06 PM.

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#106 NightHawkSniper

NightHawkSniper

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,499 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 10

Posted 28 August 2012 - 12:03 PM

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.


You're killing me, all they did was buy the rights to those 'ideas'.

5577747361_37d631069c_m.jpg
 


#107 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 28 August 2012 - 12:05 PM

damn computer

Edited by unknown33429, 28 August 2012 - 12:06 PM.

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#108 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 28 August 2012 - 12:07 PM

You're killing me, all they did was buy the rights to those 'ideas'.


What's your point?

The difference between licencing and inventing is that you pay someone outside your company to licence, and someone internally to invent. Either way, it's a legal act.

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#109 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,047 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 28 August 2012 - 12:26 PM

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.


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.
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#110 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 28 August 2012 - 12:38 PM

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.


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.

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#111 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,047 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 28 August 2012 - 12:54 PM

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.


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.
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#112 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 28 August 2012 - 01:06 PM

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.


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.

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#113 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,368 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 28 August 2012 - 01:09 PM

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?


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.

#114 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,368 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 28 August 2012 - 01:11 PM

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.


Or just toss out a whole bunch of them and recognise that a smartphone is no longer a new invention so that the industry can switch to who can make the best one instead of who happens to have the best set of lawyers and pot of money to bully people.

#115 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,047 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 28 August 2012 - 01:15 PM

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.


And I'm telling you Apple has not invented a new sitting device. They took a chair, made it look pretty and added a new cushion that everyone loved. Then Samsung made a better chair with an even nicer cushion.

Take off the Apple-Homer glasses.
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#116 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,912 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 28 August 2012 - 01:17 PM

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!

#117 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,368 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 28 August 2012 - 01:18 PM

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.


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?

#118 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 28 August 2012 - 01:18 PM

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.


Good point. Finally someone actually took the time to write something out rather than a vague reference/appeal to something.

While I do agree that most things are "tweaks" or modifications on something old, I think there is genuinely good new ideas that come out of the tech world. Also, the rate in which new technology comes out, or at which technology improves is increasing, so I don't think research is stifled by any means, and consumers are very well off. Look at the rate at which vastly better cell phones hit the market (ones that haven't stolen technology or infringed patents either).

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#119 unknown33429

unknown33429

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 11

Posted 28 August 2012 - 01:22 PM

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?


If it's so easy easy to do and think of, why didn't someone else come up with it before? Apple is not the financial Juggernaut Microsoft is, or the first company to have touch screen phones.

The alternate to this is every phone is an iPhone clone and no one bothers to come up with anything genuinely different...

Are you CRAZY??? Trade Green for ONE first round pick?? He's restricted after this season.... He WILL get an offer sheet for 7-8 million from a number of teams regardless if he plays another minute for us or not. That offer sheet would be worth 4 first round draft choices.


Some fans overrate their players, and then there is this guy.

#120 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,047 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 28 August 2012 - 01:22 PM

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?


Exactly! You should not be able to patent how you move a finger to make pixels on a screen do something. It's sad. The guy who invented the technology behind the touchscreen that allows this to happen...Absolutely! That? Hell no.
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.