AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's latest patent suit against Samsung seen as its strongest case yet
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's latest patent suit against Samsung seen as its strongest case yet - Page 3

post #81 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Stop trying to carry this argument away from design and into the functionality. They are two completely different things. The pictures are comparing the designs of the devices, NOT functions or capabilities.

What people like you are doing is, after getting caught with evidence to the contrary, now you start to latch onto other, more specific, arguments to refute my claims and statements.

Stop trying to beat around the bushes and just admit that you were wrong.

If you held them up next to each other, I doubt a lawyer would have trouble telling it apart from its iOS analog.
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

The point is that people are blinded by fanaticism, when really, they don't agree with what they're supporting--but they support it to support Apple.

As for my second argument, you'll see that I'm pushing for a paradigm change, where you can install the OS of your choice, and are no longer locked into an OS by carrier or vendor.

The point is that Android is provided for free as source, so it allows us to openly modify and install it on our devices as we see fit. A 2-year-old Evo runs ICS just fine, and will probably continue to be a good phone two years from now (should I want to continue using it.)

I understand your point. However, it is not the point that was being discussed, so rather than addressing the point that was actually under discussion, you changed the topic to something that was easier to criticize.

As for your second argument, you do not have to buy new hardware everytime you want to upgrade your software when you own an iPhone. For android, there are many phones that you do not have to buy new hardware to get the latest software; however, there are also many phones where the opposite is true.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

What you fail to see in the aggregated picture is that it is portraying the majority of the devices as having a keyboard as its predominant real estate on the devices and claiming that Apple's introduction of the iPhone, everyone started mimicking Apple'd design direction of having screen first, then buttons second.

HOWEVER, this device clearly shows that Apple wasn't the first to introduce a screen first and buttons second design language.

What you seem to keep missing/ignoring is before the iPhone, very few smartphones were touchscreen only. Now, pretty much every smartphone is touch screen without a physical keyboard, copying Apple's precedence.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:28pm
The primary objective of the aggregated pictures were to show how the screen dominated the majority of the phones' real estate.

What my picture of the SPH-i330 (i300 for the older version) showed was that Apple wasnt the first manufacturer to have started the whole "screen is the major real estate" design language, contrary to what the aggregated pictures are suggesting.

The designs of the devices were already headed in that direction to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijahg View Post

What you seem to keep missing/ignoring is before the iPhone, very few smartphones were touchscreen only. Now, pretty much every smartphone is touch screen without a physical keyboard, copying Apple's precedence.

If you leave Samsung out of this one then I'll agree with you.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #85 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

Uh, yes they do. They look remarkably similar. They're both tablets of similar dimensions, and look remarkably close to both the iPad and almost all other tablets.

It just goes to further invalidate the argument that "Apple did it first." Sheesh.

Shakespeare didn't use original plots in his plays.

Good luck trying to get away with plagiarizing his work
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

What you fail to see in the aggregated picture is that it is portraying the majority of the devices as having a keyboard as its predominant real estate on the devices and claiming that Apple's introduction of the iPhone, everyone started mimicking Apple'd design direction of having screen first, then buttons second.

HOWEVER, this device clearly shows that Apple wasn't the first to introduce a screen first and buttons second design language.

Samsung predated Apple in introducing a screen first/ button second design in 2002 for Sprint network ( of which I've personally owned).

Please stop trying to deny the obvious.

1) There are 6 buttons on the front of that phone with about 40% of the face not being dedicated to the touchscreen. Conclusion: The buttons were not an afterthought.

2) That phone's SW relied very little on the touchscreen. Only a few apps were even useful for the touchscreen. Most of the activity was done with the HW buttons. Conclusion: You are still lying.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #87 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

Apple's notification center is quite different than Android's or webOS', and many reviewers have noted this.

See, this is what I don't understand. You believe the Notification Center is quite different, and yet, it's essentially the same. Turn the argument around, and say that Samsung Galaxy Tab is quite different from the iPad, and you say that it's essentially the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijahg View Post

What you seem to keep missing/ignoring is before the iPhone, very few smartphones were touchscreen only. Now, pretty much every smartphone is touch screen without a physical keyboard, copying Apple's precedence.

So because Apple popularized the touchscreen, they should have the only rights to produce a touchscreen device?

Do you believe that only Ford should be able to construct motor vehicles, as they popularized the modern car?
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

Do you own a car with more or less wheels than four?

No?

Why is it OK for car manufacturers to make cars with the same amount of wheels, despite the vehicles themselves being wholly different?

Well, the number of wheels would have actually been an evolution of wagon and carriage, which predates patent laws.

The real innovation of the automobile was the gasoline engine, by Karl Benz. And there were patents that protected the invention.

Back to the point, I'm not saying other companies can't make products that borrow design cues or are influenced from Apple's designs, but they should acknowledge Apple as the trendsetter. Anti-Apple people seem to want to marginalize any influence Apple has had over the course of technology.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

You're exactly right. So now it's OK for Apple to simply use it?

If its properly licensed and doesn't infringe on patents.

If not, Palm can sue to their hearts content.
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

See, this is what I don't understand. You believe the Notification Center is quite different, and yet, it's essentially the same. Turn the argument around, and say that Samsung Galaxy Tab is quite different from the iPad, and you say that it's essentially the same.



So because Apple popularized the touchscreen, they should have the only rights to produce a touchscreen device?

Do you believe that only Ford should be able to construct motor vehicles, as they popularized the modern car?

The notification center is a singular element. Samsung is potentially in trouble because they potentially infringed on a myriad of protected elements when, combined, make the iPad what it is.

And no, Apple shouldn't have exclusive rights to a touchscreen device. Who says that?
Reply
Reply
post #91 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) There are 6 buttons on the front of that phone with about 40% of the face not being dedicated to the touchscreen. Conclusion: The buttons were not an afterthought.

2) That phone's SW relied very little on the touchscreen. Only a few apps were even useful for the touchscreen. Most of the activity was done with the HW buttons. Conclusion: You are still lying.


lol

Now you are jumping into the design methodologies. Wow, unbelievable. You just cant take the truth now can you?

Now its becoming personal? I must be a really bad person.

And now I'm "lying"?

A person is lying when he/she believes one truth to be true yet consistently makes statements that are otherwise. However, in this case, I'm not lying. I firmly believe that Samsung was the first to launch a screen-is-the-main interface device in the mobile communication market.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #92 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You make fun of "puerile banality" just to end your comment with a slam about living in a basement and not having sex is in discordance of your contrafribblarities. I'd hate for you be anuspeptic, phrasmotic, or even compunctious to have caused you such pericombobulation.

Wow, quoting Blackadder on an Apple forum. Now I KNOW I'm in the right place.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

So because Apple popularized the touchscreen, they should have the only rights to produce a touchscreen device?

Do you believe that only Ford should be able to construct motor vehicles, as they popularized the modern car?

No, I never claimed Apple should be the sole producer of touchscreen phones. You came up with that one up yourself. I simply said that before Apple popularized touchscreen phones (and actually made them useable, pre-iPhone touch screens sucked), no-one wanted a touch screen phone. Same with tablets. No one wanted a tablet pre-iPad, but for some reason trolls like yourself try to claim Apple has nothing to do with altering the direction of technology.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijahg View Post

No, I never claimed Apple should be the sole producer of touchscreen phones. You came up with that one up yourself. I simply said that before Apple popularized touchscreen phones (and actually made them useable, pre-iPhone touch screens sucked), no-one wanted a touch screen phone. Same with tablets. No one wanted a tablet pre-iPad, but for some reason trolls like yourself try to claim Apple has nothing to do with altering the direction of technology.

lol.

So this really has nothing to do with patents, and more about others paying Apple props for influencing technology.

Gotcha.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98 View Post

Where the heck the patents that truly define the iPhone experience?
-Inertial scrolling
-Capacitive touch screen
-Multi-touch gestures like pinch-to-zoom, rotate
-Screen transitions on a mobile device as way to work around display size limitations

As with all good fireworks displays, I have no doubt they are saving the best for the last!
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

Do you own a car with more or less wheels than four?

No?

Why is it OK for car manufacturers to make cars with the same amount of wheels, despite the vehicles themselves being wholly different?

Why do people even make this argument? Is Apple saying they can't use displays, glass, plastic, metal, CPUs, GPUs, RAM, digital storage, batteries, have a front and back, or any other basic things that come with a physical object and consumer electronics? Of course not, so why argue that a blatant copy is somehow in line with having wheels on or a motor in a car?


Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

Wow, quoting Blackadder on an Apple forum. Now I KNOW I'm in the right place.

I was hoping someone would notice. I think the guy I was responding to thinks they are real words.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #97 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

Back to the point, I'm not saying other companies can't make products that borrow design cues or are influenced from Apple's designs, but they should acknowledge Apple as the trendsetter. Anti-Apple people seem to want to marginalize any influence Apple has had over the course of technology.

This would be ideal, but I don't think it fits under the current realization of IP law. Ideally, companies should be able to borrow from each other (to some extent), and acknowledge influence, but doing so would potentially open them to legal attack. Thus, we have companies pretending that everything they come up with sprang fully formed from the head of their R&D department, with no intellectual heritage.
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

... Slide to unlock has been around forever ...

Here you are just making things up. Several very smart folks have been searching for prior art on "slide to unlock" and no one has found anything yet. This statement is simply false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

... Patenting a method of transferring bits in order to relay data? Yes, that is absolutely every digital device in existence. ...

Here you demonstrate that you know *nothing* about "data detectors" which is probably the strongest patent of the four and has been patented by Apple and talked about for many years, (long before iPhone ever came out).
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

lol.

So this really has nothing to do with patents, and more about others paying Apple props for influencing technology.

Gotcha.

Google has been copying Apple's (patented) touchscreen paradigms and ideas from the day the iPhone was unveiled. Samsung has copied Apple's (patented) designs, though they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

There really is no point in discussing something with someone as immature as yourself, as you've proven you can't accept anyone's arguments favouring Apple, even though the truth is obvious. You just come up with irrelevant nonsense that makes no real argument at all.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijahg View Post

Google has been copying Apple's (patented) touchscreen paradigms and ideas from the day the iPhone was unveiled. Samsung has copied Apple's (patented) designs, though they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

There really is no point in discussing something with someone as immature as yourself, as you've proven you can't accept anyone's arguments favouring Apple, even though the truth is obvious. You just come up with irrelevant nonsense that makes no real argument at all.

And so? What about devices that have been detecting and using input via a screen prior to the iPhone? Just because Apple popularized a touchscreen, we forget all about how others popularized devices using the screen as an input method to begin with? Sigh.

You want people to believe that Apple did everything, and they're simply continuing with the progress of technology, like every other tech company in existence is doing.

I give them props on popularizing products as they have, but if you expect me to listen to others say that they're fairly suing companies from the moral high ground, I won't accept that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Here you are just making things up. Several very smart folks have been searching for prior art on "slide to unlock" and no one has found anything yet. This statement is simply false.

Here you demonstrate that you know *nothing* about "data detectors" which is probably the strongest patent of the four and has been patented by Apple and talked about for many years, (long before iPhone ever came out).

I've already proven how slide to unlock was done before Apple did it.

And as a software developer, I would like to know what in the hell you're talking about with respect to "data detectors." What I posted is not related to any sort of "data detector" terminology whatsoever.

Please elaborate and defend your argument, because it sounds like you're just making stuff up.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 145
2/13/12 at 2:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordy View Post

We keep hearing that these Apple patents are so solid, yet none have gained any traction in the USA.

Er, did the 3 to 5 year timeline referenced in the article totally fly over your head?

Declaring irrelevancy is just a tad premature at this time.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

The comical part of this forum is that if the reverse was in gear, and Google (or any of Android's manufacturers) were suing Apple, you would all cry foul.

If Apple had done to them what they are doing to Apple, sure.

But they aren't.

I refer you back to the post that was just three before yours:

Quote:
You see how different and interesting phones and tablets were before the iPhone and iPad, respectively?

THEY WERE ALL INNOVATING BACK THEN. ALL OF THEM. As much as all of those devices sucked, that was the golden age of innovation.

Now ONE company is. ONE. And people still whine that Apple should "focus on innovating instead of suing".

If you still don't get it, go find the post - there are pictures. If you still don't get it.......
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

I've already proven how slide to unlock was done before Apple did it.

I love how the fandroids present things that aren't even close to being true - and don't understand the difference.

The link you sited did show a side to side sweep, but it did not have slide to unlock.

Apple didn't patent a sidewards slide like your video showed. They patented a very specific unlocking mechanism - which your video didn't show.

Better luck next time.
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Stop trying to carry this argument away from design and into the functionality. They are two completely different things. The pictures are comparing the designs of the devices, NOT functions or capabilities.

Both, actually. Granted, the phone image does not, but in the case of the tablets, the argument can easily be made for both UI and hardware design.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #105 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

You just validated my point. You are so emotionally attached to Apple that you feel they're always right, and everyone else is always wrong.

Perhaps your so religious in your you can't possibly acknowledge that Apple is right - other manufacturers are blatantly ripping them off?

Sometimes the simplest explanation is actually the correct one.

Scratch that, the vast majority of the time the simplest explanation is the correct one!

Quote:
Litigation like this is nonsense.

Having the ability to defend your inventions is nonsense? Wow - what a sucky world we would live in if you had your way...

Quote:
Slide to unlock has been around forever.
Patenting a method of transferring bits in order to relay data? Yes, that is absolutely every digital device in existence.

Thank you Mr. Expert. You should post your contact information so Samsung can take advantage of your obvious knowledge.

Quote:
Everyone knows these types of patents (and patent cases) are bogus.

Yes - everyone knows
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Do you understand that correlation does not imply causation?

Sure. I also understand "damn convenient" - and apparently so do at least some courts with the injunctions Apple has won. If Apple's complaints were completely bogus as some would have us believe, they wouldn't have made the headway they have so far...
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braden99 View Post

Yeah but their are definately design elements from earlier Windows slates, that suggest this HP slate could have evoved from them, irrespective whether the iPhone and iPad came out

Yeah, but theres an inconvenient rub - the iPad shipped!

Oh snap...
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

A person is lying when he/she believes one truth to be true yet consistently makes statements that are otherwise. However, in this case, I'm not lying. I firmly believe that Samsung was the first to launch a screen-is-the-main interface device in the mobile communication market.

You don't believe that the buttons were secondary input options to the pathetic single-touch resistive touchscreen you are just trying to create an argument and poorly regarding your hatred for Apple. Therefore you are lying. You aren't even lying to yourself as you know full well what you're doing.

You chose that pic because a finger is touching the screen yet you could have picked plenty of other Palm-based devices that have less buttons on the front. Of course they won't help you make you split tongue argument so why bother, right?

You keep saying that design is the only important aspect, that functionality has no barring yet it's the functionality that forms the design that made the iPhone and Apple the success they are today. Hate all you want but you're just fighting a battle you can't win.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #109 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Sure. I also understand "damn convenient" - and apparently so do at least some courts with the injunctions Apple has won. If Apple's complaints were completely bogus as some would have us believe, they wouldn't have made the headway they have so far...

What headway? For all the cases they've won, they've lost enough too. I think you'd be hard pressed to say Apple is making a return on the money they're investing in these suits--and that's just in terms of the cases they're winning.

Then factor in the cases they're losing.

The litigation is out of control, and nobody's benefiting from it.
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:20pm
oh hai look it's another AI android trolling article.

Want iPad 3 news.
Do not want preemptive celebration of Apple's patent trolling.
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:21pm
I think this should be added as relative to this discussion: http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...medium=twitter
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braden99 View Post

It's funny how defensive Apple fans (or possibly shareholders) are of the almighty Apple.

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with since day one of owning my first Mac in the 80's, being told that Apple was going to fail. From the beleaguered '90s to today when the same idiots are predicting Apple's imminent doom as Apple's stock hits $500.

Honestly I'm surprised most long time Apple users like myself are as calm as we are!

Quote:
I love a range of different devices across the years, from a vareity of manufactuers, but I understand the process of design, nothing is created in a perfectly insulated vacuum chamber - including the iPhone and iPad.

Theres a difference between creating in a vacuum, creating and building on others and outright theft.

Thankfully we don't have to rely on pundits or Internet forums to sort out the differences - we have these things called "courts". Pontification is cheap.

Prime example - the myth Apple stole from Xerox. They didn't - they paid Xerox for access the technology. Indeed, as we found out more detail through the biography, Steve Jobs berated Xerox management for sitting on the GUI and mouse and not developing it!

So yes, creating is important - but creation without execution is pretty meaningless.

Apple excels at execution - as many of their competitors, especially those who were new to competing with them and overly dismissive of them, are finding out.
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

As for my second argument, you'll see that I'm pushing for a paradigm change, where you can install the OS of your choice, and are no longer locked into an OS by carrier or vendor.

Good for you. I'm pushing for retaining the Apple model as a choice. I like the stability, predictability and reliability of Apple's "walled garden".

If you don't then fine - but stop trying to remove my choice simply because you don't agree with it.
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Apple just happened to be the first one to do both of those things, but at that time, that's what EVERYONE was just about to do.

I don't know why I bother to participate in these threads - just masochistic I suppose. Don't bother hoping he'll grasp it. His type couldn't grok objectivity if it bit 'em in the ass.

Link to a wikipedia article - sure. Comprehend? Doubtful
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Good for you. I'm pushing for retaining the Apple model as a choice. I like the stability, predictability and reliability of Apple's "walled garden".

If you don't then fine - but stop trying to remove my choice simply because you don't agree with it.

I think you've got that backwards. I don't want to remove Apple. I want Apple to try to stop removing it's competition for the wrong reasons.
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Samsung had a multi-touch capacitance touchscreen phone in 2002? It's a wonder why they had to copy Apple then¡

The keyword is touchscreen, it existed before the iPhone. No it wasn't capacitive nor multitouch but nonetheless a touchscreen. Apple took the touchscreen to another level. Apple has led technology in the smartphone/tablet market and companies followed suit. Look at TVs, they're all flat panel now, no company was stupid enough to say "screw that, we're sticking with CRTs" no because they'd be out of business.

I'll be surprised if they are granted the injunction, it'll essentially kill the Nexus. The people not running a custom ROM will likely return them.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #117 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

Continual denial and acting like Google never thought of a touch phone until Steve rolled one out on stage is simply ridiculous.

Yes it is since they more than likely got the idea when a certain Google CEO who also happened to be an Apple board member got a sneak peak. It's obvious they were working on it way before Steven came on stage with it because they didn't have to wait!
Reply
Reply
post #118 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

I don't know why I bother to participate in these threads - just masochistic I suppose. Don't bother hoping he'll grasp it. His type couldn't grok objectivity if it bit 'em in the ass.

I see that you're attempting to be objective. In a situation less clear-cut, I'd agree with you in a heartbeat over taking a side.

But when it's so blindingly obvious that what I've said is the case, it's difficult to call anything else objectivity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

I want Apple to try to stop removing it's competition for the wrong reasons.

If 'everyone is copying our stuff instead of making their own' isn't the right reason, what is?
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #119 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Er, did the 3 to 5 year timeline referenced in the article totally fly over....

No need for the arrogance. I said traction, not a be all end all win for Apple. There has been nothing here, despite traction being gained in other parts of the world.
Reply
Reply
post #120 of 145
2/13/12 at 3:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

If 'everyone is copying our stuff instead of making their own' isn't the right reason, what is?

Essentially, this is correct. In the industry, everyone oversteps their boundaries and infringes on other companies.

The caveat however has been that it's generally accepted, as progress would literally grind to a halt if all the litigation that was possible was suddenly presented.

Litigation this way is relatively new; it's been propagated by Apple and now other manufacturers are forced to litigate in return, and now we're seeing an offensive by those once targeted by Apple now attacking Apple directly (case in point, Samsung).

If the major technology players litigated all at once--MS, Apple, Google, IBM, Motorola, Samsung, HTC, RIM, Nortel (even though their patents were approved as sold today), etc., we'd have court cases booked for hundreds of years with simultaneous arguments that patents are infringing all over the place.

If this pace continues, I fear this is what we'll see.

And if that's what happens, then it's basically going to wreak havoc on the industry and then we all lose.

Apple's already under fire in return in Germany. Certainly that isn't what you want to see, is it? Maybe you don't care if you don't live in Germany, but I think it's stupid.

Companies aren't crawling out of the woodwork to litigate Apple, so why does Apple feel the need to go on the offensive? What happens when companies do go on the offensive?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple's latest patent suit against Samsung seen as its strongest case yet
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's latest patent suit against Samsung seen as its strongest case yet