Apple wins injunction against Samsung Galaxy Nexus smartphone - Page 7

 I've never made those claims before this so why would I do so now?

Sorry Soli, I had edited before your reply. I recognized that "blame" would just throw another unneeded definition into the conversation.

Did you know that it's claimed nearly 50% of litigated patents are eventually found invalid? You've actually made a good suggestion and something along those lines is already underway.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10359839-52.html

Unfortunately, you're probably right. Samsung's blatant copying of Apple's products has probably been worth billions of dollars to them - far more than any fine is likely to be. Especially when you get idiots like Posner saying that there's no harm to Apple when Samsung makes obvious copies of their products.

I'd venture that all to nearly all of Samsung's mobile revenue in the last five years is either directly or indirectly thanks to their aping of Apple's stuff.

Nothing is ever truly original. Inspiration comes in my ways. Palm OS versus Apple iOS. Interesting.

 

Ditto. Because of many different forum members, you and Mel especially, I've learned to be extra cautious and use due-diligence with anything I claim to be more than my opinion. Thanks for the debates! I'm sure there will be many more, eventually  bringing you over to my way of thinking

 

PS: You have to admit some surprise at finding no evidence that Google has ever sued a competitor in it's 15 years of existence. More than one forum member went scurrying to prove me wrong, which is great. Spending some time with independent research rather than blind acceptance of what they've heard isn't a bad thing to do. 

Edited by Gatorguy - 7/1/12 at 9:41am

The palm OS is a ripoff of Apple's Newton OS. Do your research.

Why choose Palm OS when, in regards to handhelds, Newton predates it?


But even before Newton there were decades of digitally represented icons in a grid format on Mac OS and the simple GUIs before that. Even before computers we still had items icons placed in a grid formation. Soda machines come to mind. Usually a single column but the premise is the same. I'm sure there are others people can think of. The games Go and Chess use a grid layout.

What I don't get is why icons in a grid the lack of innovation you point out and not how the code in implemented or any of the other changes to the architecture, apps, and multitude of other innovations that have made Apple's iOS devices such a huge success.



PS: "Simpsons did it!"

As has been said, Newton did it long before them.

Interesting.

Actually the lawyers for both moto google and samsung are some of the finest patent lawyers in the nation, from the law firm Quinn Emanuel.

 

 

Who was Google going to sue? It doesn't own the algorithms it uses for search, those are licensed from Stanford.  In 2011, Google owned less than 600 patents, compared to over 2000 owned by Apple. Apple also owns more through patent consortiums.

 

 More importantly, Google's business model is completely different than Apple's. Apple makes money by selling hardware. Accordingly, it wants to offer appealing hardware that others do not offer. So when it designs something, it doesn't want others to copy. Google makes money by obtaining information from people that it can sell to advertisers. It pulls people in by giving them free software services that it then uses to get the people's information. 

 

So, Apple instigates litigation when people copy its product because design is Apple's business model. 

 

 

Perhaps that is the case now, but if its products get banned from the Country, that gain will quickly be lost. 

Tim Cook on the Patent Wars:
and on others copying apple says it all:

He posed the question just before that:
He also said that if at all possible he is willing to settle these court cases but competitors would have to quit copying in order for that to happen.

 

That's my point, to a greater or lesser extent most products are copies of something else. Nothing is truly original.

 

If you're going to get personal then maybe I should mention how Apple has copied the designs of DIETER RAMS over many years.

 

Rip off or inspiration?

 

I can't be bothered to copy the pics across so you can look at the similarities for yourself at http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-apples-future

Apparently no one, right? 

 

To be clear I've not said Apple, or Microsoft or Oracle or whoever is in the wrong with their IP suits. I'm just noting that Google doesn't sue competitors, at least so far. Why is that bothersome. Is there some requirement that they strike back every time someone challenges them? Personally I think it's refreshing and hope it's not too much longer before the mobile space settles back down and everyone makes IP suits a rarity rather than a rule..

True they have not directly sued anyone yet but, because of there letter to the European Union that after acquiring motorola they will continue to pursue motorola's illegal use of frand patents to get competitors to give in, they are in fact suing now. Because motorola is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Google. So in fact google is suing apple and microsoft. Not only that they have stated in letters to the EU and the DOJ that they agree with Motorola's extortionist behavior, now that they own Motorola, they will continue down the same path.
Edited by Mechanic - 7/1/12 at 10:46am

Stop making asinine comments! It's amazing that you'd accuse Apple of copying Rams's designs simply because they used his 10 principles for good design.

The images you might try to counter with are taken of two dissimilar products but with certain lighting, angles, sizes and other visual variables so that they have basic similar look despite being nothing alike. This is pareidolia which is why crazy people put meaning into a cloud that looks like a dog or their toast looks like Jesus.
Edited by SolipsismX - 7/1/12 at 11:12am

Yes, but there's a difference between inspiration and slavish copying.

For example. Look at the Galaxy SIII. It's appearance may have been inspired by the iPhone, but it is not a slavish copy. OTOH, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is clearly a close copy of the original iPad.

Please make an effort to learn the difference.

They don't need to. They simply copy or steal from everyone else and wait until the other people sue them.

The real reason Judge Koh approved an injunction against Samsung? For the company's crime against the English language.

 

This is from their website (http://global.samsungtomorrow.com/?p=16045):

 

"GALAXY S III became smarter. It reads you and understand what you need. Smart Stay, Smart Alert, Direct Call, Double tap to top, S Voice will make you more convinient. What is your most wanted?"
 

Clearly and ironically, Samsung has not copied Apple's copywriting.

It's tough for Google to sue when their competitors respect their IP. 

Doubtful. Companies with much fewer than even the 700 or so that Google had two years ago have found them infringed.

 

Personally I don't believe it was in Google's DNA to sue for market advantage, and the lack of even one suit against a competitor would support that view. They weern't even aggressive at applying for patents on things they did create until quite recently. Do a patent search (the service Google Patents will work) to see the uptick in the number of Google patent filings in the past two years. I think they finally got the fact that feeling innovation should be shared doesn't jive with the new mobile world.

I think you're grossly misrepresenting the motives.

Google has a long history of pretending that intellectual property doesn't exist. Look at their Google Books program, for example. Since they are the takers and not the innovators or creators, it is to their advantage for IP to cease to exist. Therefore, suing (and therefore validating IP) would work against their goals.

Their patents in the past 2 years appear to be defensive - using them as threats to prevent other companies from suing them for their blatant intellectual property theft. Their purchase of Motorola seems to affirm that.

 

Please explain to me how you could design a tablet that didn't look like the iPad. The tablet computer has a natural form. It would be like trying to design a laptop that doesn't look like a laptop.

 

So what if they look the same? One has Apple written on it and other has Samsung written on it. You would have to be an idiot to get them confused.

You're now arguing his point.

You're not really innovation material…



Even Microsoft managed to do that.

You say this all the time, and every time we tell you that Samsung's own lawyers must be idiots.

I'll be the first to say you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

Google also has a long history of treating many of their innovations as the property of the open-source community. Of course they can't give everything away or they couldn't continue in business, and someday they're going to have to sue some competitor who threatens their existence.

 

Note tho that few large tech companies have been willing to contribute so much IP completely free of charge the past several years. As a matter of fact I don't think Google has received royalties on any of their contributed IP (MM of course changes that).  Their actions are evidence that they view most technical improvements as benefiting from others building on what they've created rather than locking it up.

Here's a viewpoint that might deserve discussion:

 

 

The Supreme Court has continually acknowledged the importance of maintaining high patent quality, saying just a few years ago that, "the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws [because w]ere it otherwise patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts."

Unfortunately, the American patent system today is suffering from extremely low patent quality. Every Tuesday the Patent Office issues 4,500 patents after spending, on average, less than a couple of days in reviewing the merits of each patent application. When asked to reconsider the merits of patents it previously issued, the Patent Office concedes that the vast majority of them have questionable validity. When patents end up in court as a result of patent owners suing alleged infringers, a large percentage of the time those asserted patents are found to have been improperly granted. The result is a polluted patent system littered with trash patents that impede technological development."

You can find the video included with the article where patent issues are discussed here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-b-ravicher/the-patent-pollution-problem_b_1465478.html

Apparently, Samsung hires idiots for lawyers, then.

But you are clearly wrong. It's not about the 'natural form' of a tablet. It's about Samsung just using the natural form, but making a near-exact copy - down to the packaging and the charger. Once again, you need to learn the difference between 'inspiration' and 'near-exact copy'.


Which only reinforces what I said. Google has taken the position that IP should have no value - as part of their long history of stealing people's IP.

Cool. Thanks for pointing out that the Supreme Court disagrees with Posner's position that patent exclusivity shouldn't be enforceable. The Constitution provides for exclusivity. Patent laws provide for exclusivity. And now you're admitting that the Supreme Court also believes in strong patents.

I can't wait to see Posner's position overturned.

There are plenty of ways. Samsung put enough tweaks in the Galaxy Tab 10.1N to lift an injunction in Germany.



Soli I stole your pic, so sue me lol
Edited by dasanman69 - 7/1/12 at 12:48pm

They don't say they disagree.  Read this line carefully and absorb what it says:

 

"The Congress shall have the power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

 

What is that saying? I gave you a hint. 

 

EDIT: That quote is from the Constitution in case you don't recognize it.

No, they didn't. You can't look at that and tell me that's anything but "subjectively different enough", not actually different.

It worked. Did it not?

That's right. And since you are apparently unable to comprehend even the quote you provided, let me highlight the important part:
When Posner argues that patent holders should not have an exclusive right to their invention and should therefore be forced to license it, he is in stark contrast to the Constitution.

Depends on your definition. 😐

 

When that was written the typical "limited times" were 14 years, plus the option for a 14 year renewal. That changed to 28-14, 28-28, and then 75 years or life + 50 years; but it didn't stop there, now it's 95/120 or life + 70 years. By the time that "limited" time comes to pass, who knows what further extensions will have transpired.

 

Edit: My point? The "progress of science and art" no longer matters, what matters is the progress of one person's wallet and it seems clear the limited terms are expandable into perpetuity.

Edited by johndoe98 - 7/1/12 at 12:53pm

I knew you'd miss it even tho I put in bold and a larger point-type. No sense in helping you understand since you don't want to listen. Mocking is more your style I guess. For someone who has been wrong as often as you the past 72 hours I'd consider being a bit more humble.

Edited by Gatorguy - 7/1/12 at 1:00pm

"Samsung's modified Galaxy Tab for the German market—the 10.1N—seems to be sufficiently different than the iPad in design and likely won't face an injunction" Is that English plain enough for you? You can read more here

 

And that supposed to prove what? That all of Apple's patents are invalid?

Apple isn't suing anyone over a grid of icons.