Satan's Evil Twin Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Hey, A jury of your peers decided you're wrong and apple is copying Samsung..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 You must be like 12 years old if you think anything conclusive has been established. And "my" peers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Situation Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 The difference is you pay someone outside your company to licence, and you pay internally for inventions...the point still remains, people should be able to protect their inventions. I never said touch screen phones are "completely" patented inventions, but there surely are things you can patent whether it be some software, UI etc. which Samsung has infringed. This argument is moot since Samsung already lost and has to pay. I'm sure you're humble enough to realize the judges and IP lawyers know more than you, and the jury would as well after the case...and they've decided Samsung infringed.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckamo Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Samsung is still appealing and similar court battles are raging across the world. A similar case in South Korea has found that Samsung did not copy the iPhone and that both sides infringed on each other . So I am guessing the judges, lawyers and jury in South Korea knows something the American jury does not? http://www.law.com/j...=20120728031101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Situation Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I'm not going to pretend that I know a lot about technology or patentings or anything. I just want to point out that it's not surprising that the Korean case ended in favour of Samsung. Samsung is a Korean company after all, and I would think the Koreans would want to protect their own companies (and from what my Korean friends tell me, everyone there uses LG or Samsung phones anyway?). I personally am more interested in seeing how "neutral" countries see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Samsung is still appealing and similar court battles are raging across the world. A similar case in South Korea has found that Samsung did not copy the iPhone and that both sides infringed on each other . So I am guessing the judges, lawyers and jury in South Korea knows something the American jury does not? http://www.law.com/j...=20120728031101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Situation Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 No doubt this goes to the supreme court in US. Samsung doesn't have much of a chance until the supreme court, since successful appeals are very tough....Also, Korea is not relevant in the BIG picture, since if an injunction is called by a US court....well...say goodbye to any future Samsung Galaxy (at least in apple clone form).. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckamo Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Apple is an American company and they would want to protect their own corporations. I would hardly consider the USA to be neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Situation Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Exactly. That was actually my point. Someone posted rulings from the UK and Germany and I don't know just exactly how neutral those countries are, but those just seem more interesting to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 You were saying the whole argument was moot because the US court ruled in favour of apple. I am saying that its not quite over (even in the USA) and other courts have not reached the same conclusions as this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria 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...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbox Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Really....? Stop trolling you Apple fan boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luongo Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Freaking Apple fan-boys... 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.