or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple accuses Motorola, Samsung of monopolizing markets with patents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple accuses Motorola, Samsung of monopolizing markets with patents - Page 3

post #81 of 132
This news from Apple reminds me of when I hear a republican accuse democrats of spending wrecklessly

Seriously, who are they fooling? They patented rounded corners. Ugh
post #82 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by RL7189 View Post

Sorry you may think apple started it. but if you read fosspatent blog apple states that samsung sued them them first.

Samsung didn't sue them first. Apple sued samsung first. (Trade Dress, US) Samsung sued apple in several international courts first, but ONLY after Apple sued them here.
post #83 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

The design is everything. You aren't giving the design enough credit. The design is what people are willing to pay for. Features alone don't mean anything if no one wants to use them. Design isn't as simple as here is a rectangle with rounded corners. Great way to dumb down the conversation. The responses you get in this case are well earned. The accusations about Tim Cook are ridiculous and unfounded. You are just talking out of your ass.

Design is everything, but trying to patent the BASIC design (eg a device that is basically a rectangle with a screen on one side) isn't something that should be patentable. Someone tried comparing it to the Mona-lisa. This is far too generious. It's more like Apple tried patenting a Square canvas and then proceeds to sue EVERY artist, no matter what the paining looks like.

Remember, they're using the SAME "community design" arguments against the freaking XOOM.
post #84 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Slab?

So you believe Apple has patented a glass slab?

Do you know what a "slab" is?

A slab by its very definition indicates a most uniPad like THICK object.

Perhaps you need some of the illegal meds Google was recently convicted of helping the importers to supply.

You apparently don't know that "black slab" is commonly used to define the modern touchscreen smartphone/tablet.

That's ok though, Logic is hard.
post #85 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Actually, rounded corners is patented by Apple (from what I've read on these forums) so why NOT dumb it down to that?

Design isn't what people are willing to pay for, I guarantee it. They are willing to pay for a device they can use. Maybe design on the software front is more your point. If you put iOS on the nastiest looking Android phone, and THAT was what Apple went with, they would still sell.

eh depends on what came before. if they went from the iPhone 4 to, say, the dreadful Motorola backflip then I can see people hesitating to buy. (or they'd say it's the greatest thing ever since apple can do no wrong) but if it started ugly and stayed ugly it'd sell well.

but yea. Apple patented a basic rectangular tablet with rounded corners. people stand up for that. you wont get through with logic on that front.

talk about touchwiz mimicking iOS. talk about packaging. I'd be inclined to agree. but when u support a patent on something that is basic with modern tech I can't take u seriously.

hell they sued Motorola for the same thing with the Xoom Does the Xoom look like an ipad?
post #86 of 132
I find it hilarious how so many people come to these boards and throw mud at Apple(or even Samsung) without knowing the whole story. Obviously there are reasons as to why this whole thing has come this far. Why do you assume that other avenues of settling these accusations have not been explored? It almost looks like Engadget commenters have made their way to AI and the knowledgeable ones are being baited into replying to their trolling... I'm going to have to enforce my Engadget filter here on AIalso and just stop reading comments because this is getting ridiculous.
post #87 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Because with the current trend, companies will now start reconsidering submitting those patents to the patent body because it will be much more profitable to withhold them and then sue people, or at least keep them for bargaining chips.

Not necessarily!

Say companies A, B and C have competing technologies to accomplish the same task.

Company B submits its technology as a standard!

It gets accepted as a/the standard.

This can have one or more the following effects:

1) A's & C's technologies are diminished or abandoned because they are non-standard

2) B gets a cash cow -- every competitor must license the patent

3) B reduces or eliminates the competitors and/or competitive devices

4) B gains some competitive advantages:
--- Lower costs, as they don't have to pay for a license for their own technology
--- Head-start and/or first-to-market, as they are in a better position to exploit their own technology

5) B establishes a base-line on which to build additional technology and/or standards

6) B gets a seat at the table as its technology must be used in competitors devices -- just as competitors technologies must be used in B's devices


This last, is what Sammy and MMI appear to be trying to unfairly use as leverage/protection in litigation involving patented non-standard technology.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #88 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

And they shouldn't. If you want to hit the jackpot, then don't use the FRAND patent system and hope for a more favorable outcome in the court room. Why should FRAND patents and other standards related patents give you lawsuit protection?

Explain to me why FRAND patents should be lawsuit protection against legitimate claims. It's an automatic win for the FRAND patent holder and has nothing to do with the other case. The companies were going to get what they were always going to get with an FRAND patent.

The companies clearly felt going the FRAND route would be more beneficial to their bottom line when they applied for such patents. I'm lost here. I want good solid logic... I believe the patent system is broken but not necessarily as it relates to FRAND patents in general.

In order to get other companies to license the patents, these companies try to get FRAND status and then when they are sued because they infringed on someone else's non FRAND patent they come back with an FRAND as a defense of some sort. So they want double compensation when they were the company benefiting from people licensing your product rather than develop their own in the first place? Where am I going wrong here?

It sounds like the companies want all the benefits of FRAND status but not the downside of the FRAND status.

+++ Well said!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #89 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99 View Post

Funny how more and more people on Apple Insider are starting to grow discontent with Apple's hypocrisy.

Ahh... mostly the usual suspects.

I generally agree with Sol -- but not this time.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #90 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleDroid View Post

I agree that Apple spends a fair chunk in Engineering R&D but theoretical physics? Lol, I suppose the new spaceship campus doubles as a giant synchrotron too. Gotta accelerate them particles.

I don't know what they have now... but in the 1980s Apple had a Cray Computer -- then, the most powerful computer in the world.

I am sure they have some state-of-the-art compute power today -- and it isn't being used to print invoices for the Apple Online Store.

You can see patent applications that show that Apple is doing research, in light, display, touch, sound, transmission and battery technologies -- some of which involve theoretical physics.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #91 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Because Apple's refused to pay: Nokia, Motorola, Samsung (and who knows how many others) the licensing fees for those Frand patents. That means that not only can these companies NOT use the patents defensively, but the revenue stream isn't there.

(If apple was paying fees already, the case couldn't be brought to court)

That is not true. Nokia was trying to price gouge Apple with FRAND patents. Apple said they were happy to pay the market rate for the Nokia FRAND patents it was using and nothing more. This is what the whole case was about to begin with....not whether or not Apple owed Nokia money. Apple acknowledged that they owed money. The dispute was about how much money they owed.
post #92 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Because they're completely unrelated. That's like asking why a patent on a new wheel is useless when you get sued for copying the Mona Lisa.

Let me try to make it simple. There are certain technologies which are necessary to the function of cell phones. These include the baseband and means of communicating with the cell towers. If there is no agreement on those technologies, then the entire system becomes useless (how would Verizon deal with it if every phone wanted to communicate differently?). These essential technologies become industry standards. When a company has a patent controlling one of the technologies, they license it under FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms. That is, everyone who uses the technology pays the same amount. This is a benefit to the industry because they don't have to deal with 1,000 different fundamental processes.

On the other side are device-specific patents and, in particular, design patents. These involve ways of doing things that are not essential to the operation of the entire network. For example, Apple's 'swipe to unlock' patent. While every phone must have a way to unlock (or must stay powered on at all times), there are many ways of accomplishing that, so being able to swipe is NOT essential to the operation of the network. Therefore, the inventor is not required to license that technology.

There is absolutely nothing inconsistent about Apple's argument, nor is there any hypocrisy. Apple's position has always been "essential things that are licensed under FRAND must remain FRAND (see, for example, their suit against Nokia) and things that are not licensed under FRAND and are non-essential remain the inventor's property to do with as they will".



You mis-spelled "Funny how more and more Apple haters have found their way to AppleInsider".



No synchrotron, but their antenna lab uses some pretty advanced physics and instrumentation research. It's not a major part of Apple's R&D, but they do SOME theoretical work.

Nice post. The way you explained the patent issue -- anyone who can't understand that, doesn't want to understand it!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #93 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Not necessarily!

Say companies A, B and C have competing technologies to accomplish the same task.

Company B submits its technology as a standard!

It gets accepted as a/the standard.

This can have one or more the following effects:

1) A'c & C's technologies are diminished or abandoned because they are non-standard

2) B gets a cash cow -- every competitor must license the patent

3) B reduces or eliminates the competitors and/or competitive devices

4) B gains some competitive advantages:
--- Lower costs, as they don't have to pay for a license for their own technology
--- Head-start and/or first-to-market, as they are in a better position to exploit their own technology

5) B establishes a base-line on which to build additional technology and/or standards

6) B gets a seat at the table as its technology must be used in competitors devices -- just as competitors technologies must be used in B's devices


This last, is what Sammy and MMI appear to be trying to unfairly use as leverage/protection in litigation involving patented non-standard technology.

That almost exactly how I saw this particular accusation by Apple. It seems like a valid claim to me.
post #94 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

What some might call a double standard.

Perhaps. But 'some' don't understand the rules of the game as it is being played out...

Baseball is baseball - in one division the pitchers bat and in another you have designated hitters.

Hardly a double standard.
post #95 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

The only purpose to putting logic behind an argument that criticizes apple on AI is if you are bored and can't think of a better use of your time (or if you want to put it into words for your own purposes) No matter what is said, if it's critical of apple on AI, people will say it's illogical, if they acknowledge it at all.

I do not agree!

But, if you think that is the case...

Why are you here?

Why do you post?
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #96 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by UIGuy View Post

Perhaps. But 'some' don't understand the rules of the game as it is being played out...

Baseball is baseball - in one division the pitchers bat and in another you have designated hitters.

Hardly a double standard.

Bingo!



...Then there's that whole indoor football or indoor soccer thing...
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #97 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

Ladies and gentlemen, my point exactly. I know the two issues are not the same, I read the article, and I understand the complaint, it just comes across a little disingenuous. I tend to agree with Apple on the complaint, but also tend to agree that it's a bit childish. Just because someone or something does something wrong doesn't mean that you go and tattle on them. Work something out between the two of you.

Think about this example:

You live in a small town, and the owner of the only gas station in town stole from you. You brought him to court asking for damage, and he counter sued you to stop you from buying gas from him.

Now would you be childish if you point out what the store owner did is wrong?
post #98 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Apple patented a basic rectangular tablet with rounded corners. people stand up for that. you wont get through with logic on that front.

Funny how the Apple haters keep saying that - but no one has been able to come up with a patent where Apple claimed a patent on a rectangular tablet with rounded corners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

Think about this example:

You live in a small town, and the owner of the only gas station in town stole from you. You brought him to court asking for damage, and he counter sued you to stop you from buying gas from him.

Now would you be childish if you point out what the store owner did is wrong?

I've seen some pretty convoluted analogies, but that may well be the worst.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #99 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Funny how the Apple haters keep saying that - but no one has been able to come up with a patent where Apple claimed a patent on a rectangular tablet with rounded corners.



wasn't that the entire complaint against Samsung? (and Motorola)
post #100 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

wasn't that the entire complaint against Samsung? (and Motorola)

I'm not interested in what all the Apple-haters say that the complaint was about. I'd like to see the patent where they claim that Apple is trying to patent a rectangle with rounded corners.

Put up or shut up.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #101 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

. . . but no one has been able to come up with a patent where Apple claimed a patent on a rectangular tablet with rounded corners.

I've done so several times. but I guess one time more won't hurt . . .

This is what Apple is alleging against Sammy in Germany, for which they were given an injunction. That's it. No touchscreen or gesture patents, no icon similarity. Simply the rectangular shape with rounded corners, which Apple claims to have the sole rights to. Now that I've led you to the source JrAgosta, does this seem reasonable to you?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/C...000181607-0001

And a reasoned (IMO) blog on the issue.
http://www.netbooknews.com/32506/act...ding-a-tablet/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #102 of 132
Bingo. Motorola makes cable boxes, dvr/pvr's, modems etc...

Google wants to be in your living room selling content. Thats the next battle ground. The problem is that the cable companies who control the pipe also require their hardware and that hardware is generally manufactured by Moto.

By buying Moto, Google can provide the box and sneak software in there.

Wish Apple would have bought Moto. I don't want GoogleTV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Google know this and this is I think they didn't buy Motorola for patents.
post #103 of 132
deleted
post #104 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

You apparently don't know that "black slab" is commonly used to define the modern touchscreen smartphone/tablet.

That's ok though, Logic is hard.

Only in your own mind.

slab |slab|
noun
a large, thick, flat piece of stone, concrete, or wood, typically rectangular: paving slabs | she settled on a slab of rock.
a large, thick slice or piece of cake, bread, chocolate, etc.: a slab of bread and cheese.
Climbing a large, smooth, steep body of rock.
an outer piece of timber sawn from a log.
a table used for laying a body on in a morgue.
verb ( slabs, slabbing , slabbed ) [ with obj. ] (often as noun slabbing)
remove slabs from (a log or tree) to prepare it for sawing into planks.
DERIVATIVES
slabbed adjective,
slabby adjective
ORIGIN Middle English: of unknown origin.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #105 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Only in your own mind.

slab |slab|
noun
a large, thick, flat piece of stone, concrete, or wood, typically rectangular: paving slabs | she settled on a slab of rock.
a large, thick slice or piece of cake, bread, chocolate, etc.: a slab of bread and cheese.
Climbing a large, smooth, steep body of rock.
an outer piece of timber sawn from a log.
a table used for laying a body on in a morgue.
verb ( slabs, slabbing , slabbed ) [ with obj. ] (often as noun slabbing)
remove slabs from (a log or tree) to prepare it for sawing into planks.
DERIVATIVES
slabbed adjective,
slabby adjective
ORIGIN Middle English: of unknown origin.

Slate, slab, pad and tablet are all used in various descriptions of devices like the Tab, Xoom, iPad, Nook, etc.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #106 of 132
You know, these flimsy visual aids could go both ways.

Let's see one showing what Apple tablets looked like before Samsung tablets
post #107 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode 5 View Post

I don't know the details of all the various disputes going on, but the distinction here seems reasonable.

So far Apple's dispute with sammy and others has centred around the manner in which their products are being mimicked in one way or another, that effects how Apple and "the consumer" differentiates their products from others.

Google/Moto and Samsung on the other hand are trying to leverage tech standards they've developed and licence in defence of design practices intended to affect market perception.

Ultimately, if the two are confused tech standards become weapons that have the power to lock competitors out completely, or threaten them into submission when the holder wants a piece of the blockbuster product action that Apple or others have developed on top of those standards. That definitely seems anticompetitive.

Apples successful products with consumers is derived from their design prowess not the necessary standard tech that products need to conform to or are constructed with.

Exactly, those of you who don't agree with Apple on this one need to re-read the above post. Apple has never used standards related patents as a club to prevent anyone from competing in a market, but Samsung and Motorola are trying to do just that. Just as Microsoft strong armed the world into accepting Windows as a standard, and look at the wonderful innovation that came from them! (sarcasm) Samsung and Motorola are the ones who can't play on a level playing field. They are failing so they want to force Apple to allow them to copy Apple's products. How is this correct behavior by any stretch of the imagination?
post #108 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Not necessarily!

Say companies A, B and C have competing technologies to accomplish the same task.

Company B submits its technology as a standard!

It gets accepted as a/the standard.

This can have one or more the following effects:

1) A's & C's technologies are diminished or abandoned because they are non-standard

Or in the case of Apple, continue to use their own technology wherever possible instead of using a standard because it helps them lock in.
Quote:
2) B gets a cash cow -- every competitor must license the patent

See answer to number 1. Also Realize that If Motorola and Samsung are suing Apple NOW it means that Apple owes them, what? 4 years of payments? That's from before Android was picked up by either company.

Quote:
3) B reduces or eliminates the competitors and/or competitive devices

No. This isn't the case. Some tech became standards for reasons other than it was the best available. Standards just make things compatible.

Quote:
4) B gains some competitive advantages:
--- Lower costs, as they don't have to pay for a license for their own technology
--- Head-start and/or first-to-market, as they are in a better position to exploit their own technology

F/Rand patents have a very low revenue stream compared to non frand patents. By the time they're frand, any head start is also gone.

Quote:
5) B establishes a base-line on which to build additional technology and/or standards

Not relevant.

Quote:
6) B gets a seat at the table as its technology must be used in competitors devices -- just as competitors technologies must be used in B's devices

Not necessarily. And ALL of the "advantages" you listed were from a world where tech companies didn't use thier Non-Frand patents to destroy one another. It's much more profitable to Patent something and NOT make it a standard. Because Companies can REFUSE to license it, and all you get if you win is a backlog of payments, that you have to take them to court to get. When They can sue you OVER A SQUARE.

Quote:
This last, is what Sammy and MMI appear to be trying to unfairly use as leverage/protection in litigation involving patented non-standard technology.

Apple is asserting that no other device can be a touchscreen dominated slab, no matter the aspect ratio, thickness, or back design. They are going after the XOOM for community design violations.

How is a Square not "standard?"

As for why I'm here, it's clear that most people who comment here don't actually read news anywhere else (nothing else explains their opinions). So If I can give them a little taste of something approaching different with just a few minutes a day, why not.

Believe it or not, you can still LIKE, even LOVE a product and question some of their choices.
post #109 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Apple is asserting that no other device can be a touchscreen dominated slab, no matter the aspect ratio, thickness, or back design. They are going after the XOOM for community design violations.

Once again, please provide the patent where Apple claims that.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #110 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

From FOSS Patents:

Quote:
U.S. Application Serial No. 85/299,118 for the configuration of a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with evenly rounded corners [the iPhone 4]

First, please provide the actual patent that is in question. Things get changed all the time between application and issuance.

More importantly, look at what that says. The patent is not for a rectangle with rounded corners. It specifically says "THE CONFIGURATION OF a rectangular...."

In spite of all the endless misinformation here, just the title shows that Apple is not claiming to have a patent on a rectangle with rounded corners - which is what a bunch of people claim.

What is relevant is what Apple actually claims, not what hordes of mindless Apple-hater SAY that Apple's patents claim. So, in the future, please provide copies of Apple's patents before you're going to pretend that they say something.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #111 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Once again, please provide the patent where Apple claims that.

He can't... He just has views -- not facts!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #112 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SixnaHalfFeet View Post

Exactly, those of you who don't agree with Apple on this one need to re-read the above post. Apple has never used standards related patents as a club to prevent anyone from competing in a market, but Samsung and Motorola are trying to do just that. Just as Microsoft strong armed the world into accepting Windows as a standard, and look at the wonderful innovation that came from them! (sarcasm) Samsung and Motorola are the ones who can't play on a level playing field. They are failing so they want to force Apple to allow them to copy Apple's products. How is this correct behavior by any stretch of the imagination?

How is suing anyone (only when they start making money) simply because their phones/tablets look like a Square right? Companies that you've REFUSED to pay licensing fees to for tech you stole from them.

Apple is using their patents like a club. No, they're not recognized as "standards," at least not yet, but they're broad enough and Vital enough (such as a square) that without them it would effectively lock all their competitors out of the market. You can point to Touchwiz and the GalaxyS line, and if that's all they were going after, you might have a point. But Apple's going after Motorola, they're going after HTC, they're going after Stock android devices that have a KEYBOARD attached.

Why? Because the front of them looks like a square with rounded corners. Or they somehow got a patent for unlocking the touchscreen USING the touchscreen (even with prior art existing). No, it's not "standard" patents. But that doesn't make it right, especially considering Apple isn't paying these companies for the patents to begin with.
post #113 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Once again, please provide the patent where Apple claims that.

The link has been provided to you. You're on a modern browser. You are capable of leaving AI I know it's hard.

Also, look at their Community design application for the EU. IT's a rectangle with rounded corners. Buttons, screen, bezel, etc are not part of it. (This is also featured on Foss Patents and it easily googled)

People have sent you the links countless times. You ignore them.
post #114 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

He can't... He just has views -- not facts!

No, it's because he's been given the link countless times. I've provided him with dozens of other links in the past for other arguments. He doesn't read them, or outright ignores the post we give them to him in. Why spend time finding the SAME information over and over again if he just ignores it?

Again, Apple is suing for Community Design violations for the XOOM. How in the world would someone mistake that for an ipad?
post #115 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

As for why I'm here, it's clear that most people who comment here don't actually read news anywhere else (nothing else explains their opinions). So If I can give them a little taste of something approaching different with just a few minutes a day, why not.

Believe it or not, you can still LIKE, even LOVE a product and question some of their choices.


I have no problem liking a product and questioning the choices of the company who provides the product.

For example, I like Google Search... but question their ethics and the business acumen that resulted in the MMI fiasco.


So, since you have access to superior news sources, why not share them:

Where do you get your news?
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #116 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

First, please provide the actual patent that is in question. Things get changed all the time between application and issuance.

More importantly, look at what that says. The patent is not for a rectangle with rounded corners. It specifically says "THE CONFIGURATION OF a rectangular...."

In spite of all the endless misinformation here, just the title shows that Apple is not claiming to have a patent on a rectangle with rounded corners - which is what a bunch of people claim.

What is relevant is what Apple actually claims, not what hordes of mindless Apple-hater SAY that Apple's patents claim. So, in the future, please provide copies of Apple's patents before you're going to pretend that they say something.


JrAgosta, see post 101 above. It's got the link to the Community Design Patent that Apple is using as a club against Samsung in Germany. It only references the general shape, rectangular, and the general corner shape, slightly rounded. Absolutely nothing to do with anything other than a rectangular, rounded corner slab shape for a portable computer. According to Apple, no one can build a portable computer in the shape of a rounded corner rectangle since they were the originator. Simple as that.

The link has been posted more than once, yet you claim no one's pointed you to it. I'm beginning to wonder if you're purposely acting as tho it doesn't exist, a kind of inconvenient truth.

Just to be completely clear so that you don't misunderstand again.
This is the actual patent here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/C...000181607-0001

From the tone of your posts on this topic, it's plainly obvious that you'd consider it ridiculous if Apple actually had a patent for this. Which they do.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #117 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I have no problem liking a product and questioning the choices of the company who provides the product.

For example, I like Google Search... but question their ethics and the business acumen that resulted in the MMI fiasco.


So, since you have access to superior news sources, why not share them:

Where do you get your news?

Engadget, TIMN, Android Central, TiPB, CNN, Cnet, Groklaw, and over a dozen others (Rss readers are a wonderful thing) I occasionally even Read Fosspatents and AI. The key is to get it from several sources, not just a single one, or a single bent, like most of the people here.

I've been on AI for years, even though I only recently registered. They've gone from a great "Apple related" news source to one that is little more than a spin machine that seems to spend just as much (or more) time covering the actions of Apple's competitors than they do covering how it relates to Apple, or even Apple related news. Sure, it's good to be apprised of what Apple's competitors are doing, but not when the source you're getting that information from is a site who will make sure everything is spun to put Apple in the best possible light.

When Samsung unveiled their Galaxy S/Touchwiz devices, it was Android blogs that started putting out the first "we're not sure about this" type articles, questioning samsung's moves, and saying that it was inviting a lawsuit. Tell me, when was the last time AI posted something that questioned a move by Apple? Even recently, where a judge said that 9-10 claims against samsung weren't strong enough for any preliminary injunction, and said that he didn't feel his opinions would change (and that at least one could easily be invalidated), AI ran the story as a "Major Victory" for apple because they got the injunction on a SINGLE patent, one that Samsung could have changed before the deadline (and thus shipments remain uninterrupted)
post #118 of 132
deleted
post #119 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I've done so several times. but I guess one time more won't hurt . . .

This is what Apple is alleging against Sammy in Germany, for which they were given an injunction. That's it. No touchscreen or gesture patents, no icon similarity. Simply the rectangular shape with rounded corners, which Apple claims to have the sole rights to. Now that I've led you to the source JrAgosta, does this seem reasonable to you?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/C...000181607-0001

And a reasoned (IMO) blog on the issue.
http://www.netbooknews.com/32506/act...ding-a-tablet/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

No, it's because he's been given the link countless times. I've provided him with dozens of other links in the past for other arguments. He doesn't read them, or outright ignores the post we give them to him in. Why spend time finding the SAME information over and over again if he just ignores it?

Again, Apple is suing for Community Design violations for the XOOM. How in the world would someone mistake that for an ipad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


JrAgosta, see post 101 above. It's got the link to the Community Design Patent that Apple is using as a club against Samsung in Germany. It only references the general shape, rectangular, and the general corner shape, slightly rounded. Absolutely nothing to do with anything other than a rectangular, rounded corner slab shape for a portable computer. According to Apple, no one can build a portable computer in the shape of a rounded corner rectangle since they were the originator. Simple as that.

The link has been posted more than once, yet you claim no one's pointed you to it. I'm beginning to wonder if you're purposely acting as tho it doesn't exist, a kind of inconvenient truth.

Just to be completely clear so that you don't misunderstand again.
This is the actual patent here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/C...000181607-0001

From the tone of your posts on this topic, it's plainly obvious that you'd consider it ridiculous if Apple actually had a patent for this. Which they do.

The problem is that none of those are the 'patent' in question. That is a certificate of registration. The supporting documents are noticeably missing.

That's the problem with you Apple haters. You find some fragment of information and immediately start blaring crap like "Apple patented a rectangle with rounded corners" without any supporting evidence.

Please provide a copy of the PATENT that you're claiming exists. Not a trademark registration - which is an ENTIRELY different matter.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #120 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The problem is that none of those are the 'patent' in question. That is a certificate of registration. The supporting documents are noticeably missing.

Please provide a copy of the PATENT that you're claiming exists. Not a trademark registration - which is an ENTIRELY different matter.

\Dude, that IS the Community Design Patent awarded to Apple. The actual honest-to-God "certificate of registration" that is the only document the EU sends as proof of ownership of a Community Design Patent. A copy of which was given to the German court as evidence. All four pages of it. It's not some unrelated supporting document. It' the actual document you keep claiming doesn't really exist, since it would be stupid for anyone to allow a patent on a rectangular shape with rounded corners.

And if you just don't understand what the document you're looking at is, here's an explanation of the EU patent law as regards Community Designs.
http://www.stoel.com/files/15Things.pdf

I've decided that you're being purposely obtuse at this point. Perhaps playing a little joke on us.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple accuses Motorola, Samsung of monopolizing markets with patents