Apple targets Galaxy S II, 9 other Samsung smartphones in new German suit - Page 2

I think Apple product owners should file a tort claim against samesung. Samesung's blatant copying of Apple's products make Apple products value go down, hence lowering the value of Apple product's resale value. I think this lawsuit will be a game changer for Apple. Samesung is like a famous forger, just 'cause they copy Apple products better than every other manufacturer who tries to mimic Apple, doesn't excuse them from their 'illegal' activities. It's just pathetic how a forger's forgery is valued higher than some other manufacturers who make honest phones.

don't you have homeless people to burn?

Microsoft singed another Android vendor to their protection racket. MSFT will make about a billion 2012 in Android licensing fee's. Talk about free money. That is also more money then Google will make on Android this year.

So why don't Apple license out its patents like MSFT?

Remember the Windows debacle? Apple licensed its Windows system to Microsoft for Windows vers1. Somehow the judge in the Apple Vs MSFT trial thought that license was valid for ALL windows system, not only for Windows 1.

Apple don't have a great track record in protecting its IPs and innovations. They have starting to try to do it the last couple of years but instead of the "look and feel" patent, go after the real patents. Apple have been awarded many multi touch patents that every Android phone is breaking. Go after them for this.

And please Apple: Stop supporting Samsung. Only reason why Samsung can copy you stuff is because they make a huge part of them. Lets say that Samsung manufactures the SoC in Ipad3, this means that Samsung have known for at least 4 month exactly what Ipad3 is. Thats why they can clone the stuff so fast, since they have Apples roadmap.

Apple needs its own foundry. They are big enough today to have one. Produce their own SoC + Flash memory = cheaper, faster and more secrecy. More risky, yes, but the upside is huge. Using their own A class SoC have given them a huge edge over Android vendors since its cheaper and no other SoC is in its class and its tailor made for Apple.

These forums need a "Like" button.

False.

A German court has already agreed, on one occasion, that a resemblance to a registered community design consisting of a 2-dimensional line drawing is adequate grounds to justify an import ban. Any actual resemblance to any currently (or past) shipping Apple products simply didn't matter - just the resemblance to the details that were visible in the registered community design document. This document, to be exact.

In response, Samsung made some changes to the shape of the device's edges. The changes were fairly insignificant overall (mush less significant than Apple had been hoping for). But the German court has given a preliminary indication that they agree with Samsung that the subtle changes are adequate.

This is exactly the story of how the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N came into existence.

Paragraphs.

wakefinance HATES them!

Homeless people don't bother me, as long as they're not being homeless next to my home.

So make an exact copy of a Porsche and you'll find yourself in court defending a design infringement case so fast your head would spin.

Read up or f*&k off.

I agree with that. And they also need a "dislike" button too.

He makes some very relevant points.

You gonna call him a child molester next?

So why did Samsung release the Galaxy TAB 10.1N model in Germany, made specifically to avoid infringing Apple's deign patents which saw the banning of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, which is still banned?

Copying Apple have been hugely successful for Samsung. I also think that Samsung is the Android vendor with best stuff. If Apple didn't exist/or when Apple are to crazy I would buy Samsung stuff.

But I hate Samsung support.
My 2560x1600 Samsung monitor: Its 3 month since i left it to get repaied. Samsung have hired totally incompetent support personal.
My Apple 2560x1600. I got it replaced 1 day.

Apples service is something that Samsung will have problem copying.

BTW. I wonder about Samsungs moral. Apple helped Samsung to build its NAND factories in 2005 giving them a billion. Apple is Samsungs largest customer with almost 10 billion in revenue. How can Samsung morally copy/steal from their largest customer? Don't forget about the Samsung person that leaked all Apple stuff to case makers and other staff. Really non ethical behavior.

You left out the part about the 2 dimensional line drawing depicting a 3 dimensional object.

e.g. the house I live in was built based on 2 dimensional drawings.

Apple = protecting intellectual property.


In my opinion, that thing still infringes. In fact, it infringes MORE, because it's a BLATANT copy of the original iPad. Samsung said to themselves, "Okay, we can't copy the iPad 2? Fine, we'll copy your first gen iPad."

And isn't Apple gunning for a ban of the Tab N too, because of that?

Which is which. I can't tell.

You're too dumb to recognize an obvious play on words. Unbelievable.

And the tab 10.1 didnt infringe on the design patent of the ipad or ipad2. It was banned because it resembled a drawing of a non-existant product.

If apple had a strong case aganist it on the grounds of the ipad or ipad2 design, why didnt it go after the tab with those patents instead of using some old drawing it dug up?

Thus far, no court has banned a samsung product because it looked too much (hardware wise) like an apple product.

German court agreed only based on technicalities, not on its merits. There is a difference.



Right... at an unusual time when competition is creeping up on their backs.

We all know that it isnt about intellectual property per se that motivated Apple to pursue their legal proceedings, but rather the significant threat that Samsung posed as a competitor to Apple's market share.

It's a decoy.

Prove me wrong though. You haven't done that. So I suppose my point stands.

Besides my comment to Apple ][ is based on a discussion I don't think you were around for.

Sure it didn't.


HA! Competition? That's rich.


Not in the slightest. This is exactly the same case as the eMachines lawsuit. It posed absolutely no threat to Apple in terms of marketshare, but fortunately that doesn't matter in the slightest if it's a question of IP theft.

Maybe they are so dumb they just concentrate on the legal merits of the case without the bias of fanboyism.

In other News:

Samsung look like they might be laying the groundwork to giving Android and Google the bird. They have announced they are more or less abandoning their Bada OS and folding it into another of their OS projects, Tizen. Looks likely the new OS will run on smartphones and likely tablets, TV's and other devices.

Blatant copying of Apple if you ask me.

They have also started production of a 46" transparent display panel.

More blatant copying of Apple.

They have also announced they are to invest $41.7 Bn this year. About $11.86 Bn of that will be in R&D

This last bit I find puzzling. Why would you need to invest so much in R&D if the only thing you do is copy other peoples ideas? Must be a misprint.

Not really. The Dusseldorf court has patent-friendly reputation and is commonly known as the Eastern Texas courts of Germany (favored by patent trolls). If Apple had legitimate patents case against Samsung, they would have filed lawsuits in the Dutch court where Samsung's entire European distribution would be jeopardized.

All, but one of Apple's claims, were invalidated/thrown out in the Dutch court last year. The Dutch court sided with Apple on one "scrolling" (software) claim found in Android, not Samsung.

lol! yeah hard one there.

Why? So you can say you 'like' Samsung, and 'like' people who say they 'like' Samsung?

Go to a Samsung forum (don't know if there are any; don't care either).

I doubt Apple's capital investment did much - after all, Samsung spends many more billions building / upgrading new fabs every year. It isn't a charity either - Apple did it to secure supplies and deep discount.

Nope, Samsung's #1 client is Sony - that alone should raise some concern. Apple is #2 and accounts for slightly less than 5% of all Samsung Electronics's sales.

You might have a point if Apple was suing based on a claim that the current Tab resembles an iPad, but they're not. The Community Design claimed this time may not look like an iPad nor any other Apple product, and it doesn't need to. It's that they believe the current Tabs and Galaxy's look too much like drawings they did a few years ago and sent in to register, joining several hundred other Apple drawings of products that may never have existed.

It's not the look of home screens, rows of icons, or any Apple patents. It's just about comparing a set of line drawings to a currently available product from a competitor. This round of lawsuits has nothing to do with any actual Apple products.

One of these days, Apple is going to push Samsung to patent (or is it Community Design) a circle, triangle and a trapezoid (if Apple hasn't already done so).

Once that happens, its not only going to rile up techniques, but also mathematicians as well.

Then, even 1st graders will be jumping on the bandwagon of fanboy hating.

I'll stick around just for the entertainment.

So I could get some very talented artists together, have them use their creativity and create tons of line drawings of things I hope will one day becom a reality, submitt them without ever building or even plan on building and now I own the rights and can legally block anyone attempting to produce anything that resembles them? That just does not seem fair. Take all the syfy movies from he past few years, make "drawings" submitt to EU, rake in The cash.

I also read something like this in OS news website. In that report, Apple registered hundreds of Cummunity Design mainly in drawing in EU for the products that never existed. Sure Apple did register Community Designs for some acctual products like Iphone (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...ucts-with.html) but Apple also registered multiple possible designs not eventuated (like the second Cummunity Design in above link). One other point was that the drawing Community Designs Apple registered were too vague that could be used too widely.

Registering multiple Community Designs in drawings that never existed. Bringing Community Design not eventuated in Court over existing product. It seems like that is what Apple is doing here. It looks like Apple is saying that they want monoploy in public.

How would you expect the US to enforce US laws in a foreign country?

No it wouldn't be.
You can't copyright how things are said.

I have no idea how, but if it's important enough: trust me, the job gets done.

Ditto. Ever since the lawsuit wars began, people on Apple Insider have oversimplified this as a matter of one company ripping off the other. If you try to explain to them that look and feel are tough to successfully litigate or demonstrate the actual basis of the lawsuits, you're dismissed as a fanboy.


These lawsuits don't come cheap. All they do is create extra costs for firms involved and lead to backlash long-term. The more I read about Apple getting shot down in courts all around the world, the more compelled I am to believe Apple's becoming more like RAMBUS. As I've said in other threads, Apple should just stick to innovating and marketing. Those are its two towers. They should continue capitalizing on those two strengths instead of wasting valuable time and resources on lawsuits that increasingly appear more likely than not to fail.


You can go ahead and keep saying "Good, I hope this one sticks" with each and every suit that turns out to be a sham for Apple, because at the rate Apple keeps getting at these unfavorable rulings, you'll be saying the same line over...and over...and over...again.

The non-legal community needs people like you guys to hash out the issues and explain them in a way that's understandable. I plan to take a couple of IP classes in my last year of law school, and I find your explanations to be pretty legitimate based on what I've read on my own and what I've learned just through conversations with my IP buddies.


And yes, the lawsuits this time around are (again) not centered on "slavish" copies (can we please have the mods on AI limit or censor the use of that word to discourage it from losing its meaning?) of Apple products. They center around design patents that appear to be either vague or too far-reaching to be meaningful.


And yeah. I get where fanboys are coming from wishing evil upon Samsung. But I think more people here need to question just where we draw the line on patent law. Should we allow Apple to continue wasting the time and money of their competitors just to bring lawsuits based on worthless patents that'll only get invalidated or just not enforced by a high court?


Equally important, let's put this in the sphere of American patent law. What kind of precedent would we set if we were to recognize these far-reaching patents? It's already bad enough that it costs about roughly $2 million for a small business over here in Silicon Valley just to fend off a lawsuit based off a sham patent that no serious judge would ever uphold. These patent trolls, while not anywhere close to Apple in terms of churning out good products based on legitimate patents, end up intimidating small businesses into settling for a lump sum somewhere below that figure. In short, the whole thing's a mess. Do we want to exacerbate this trend further?


I really think we need to think about these issues more carefully and put aside the emotional attachment to a brand.

Bravo!

So, are you another shill come to prop up Samsung's image, or just another poor misguided boy with a screwed up set of values?

We do need to think about these issues more carefully, much more carefully. None of these careless, "Oh, that big mean Apple, why can't they just let everyone make iPhones," inspired attempts to pretend to rationality. No, we need to carefully think about what is it we really believe in when we defend the practice of stealing other people's work.

Yes, another thread has devolved into legalistic, hair-splitting arguments where phrases like "Community Design" and "rounded corners" are rolled around on the floor like so many marbles to trip up anyone who might actually think that Google and Samsung are thieves and have done something wrong here, by, you know, stealing the entire fucking design of iOS and the iPhone and making cheap knockoffs of them.

Because, there can be no rational argument that they aren't thieves. Don't be fooled by the, "Google bought Android before Apple announced the iPhone," argument, which is the only defense they have, Android is a cheap knockoff of iOS, nothing more. Samsung's smartphones and tablets are cheap knockoffs of the iPhone and iPad. And the reason this shouldn't surprise anyone is that all the evidence shows that this is how both companies typically operate: by stealing the work of others.

So, is it really OK to just steal someone else's work and pass it off as your own? Because, that's what Google and Samsung are doing here. Do we really want to live in a world where that is considered a good thing? Who cares what Apple's legal strategy is in putting a stop to theft. Arguing about "rounded corners" is like saying the Feds shouldn't go after mobsters for tax evasion. What's the important thing here, that we stop criminal behavior, or that we convict only for murder?

Got to love it when the big defense is calling someone a paid shill when they're not completely singing the praises of Apple.

So I'm guessing you're a paid Apple shill since you're always here to defend them and attack any company that dares to compete against them. Especially Google (I can only guess that maybe one of their Street View vehicles ran over your cat at some point for the amount of venom you spew towards them).

Let's see, some of Google's blatant copying: They redefined internet search, redefined internet maps, redefined internet mail, and (for better or worse) redefined internet advertising.

Your argument would hold if Apple sues every other company on the globe that has "similar" designs as Apple's "Community design" so called "patent".

But they arent.

They are only targeting a select few companies with enough market threat to undermine Apple's market share.

That, my friend, is enough evidence to suggest that they are basing their decision to sue purely on anti-competitive reasons.

Of course, Apple would NEVER admit to that as that.

lol..