Apple wins injunction against Samsung Galaxy Nexus smartphone - Page 8

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


Posner's position that patent exclusivity shouldn't be enforceable. 

That is NOT Posner's position. You misunderstood his point. 

Quote what he said that geve you the mistaken impression, and  I'll explain it to you.

That's what I was going to attempt to do, but obviously wasting time to try and do so for the good Dr. Someone else may think you'll try to understand and explain it to you. Good luck to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK 

 

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

LOL, you are grasping at straws. First Palm's grid of icons, now Dieter Rams. "Quick, lemme find examples of Apple copying design. Google search later...Oooo...gold mine! Dieter Rams! Let me post that on AppleInsider... I win!!!"

To say that Apple "ripped off" Dieter Rams is like saying Mozart "ripped off" Classical Music. Rams is the father of an industrial design movement that Jonathan Ive (and Dieter Rams) acknowledge that Apple follows today. You don't "rip off" a design movement; you belong to it. And for the record, Rams loves that Apple is following his design philosophy.

Samsung hasn't done what Apple has done. They haven't embraced Dieter Rams' functionalist industrial design principles. They aren't inspired by Braun products of the 60s. It's very obvious: they saw the iPhone and iPad selling like kimchi and decided their future phones and tablets should look like that, to the point that Samsung's own lawyers couldn't tell them apart from Apple's. This is common sense. Stop fighting it with nonsense posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


Sure:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/06/judge-posners-dismissal-of-two-way.html
Now, you explain to me how that says anything other than that Posner doesn't think patents should give exclusivity. And explain how that position can be reconciled with a very clear statement in the Constitution that patents DO give exclusivity.

Wow you are really stretching here aren't you? Surely you understand the distinction between owning something and using something? Only I have the deed to my car, but I can let you drive it for a fee if you like. Similarly, the constitution says authors/creators own the exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries, but it never says that others can't make use of those patents/copyrights/trademarks under certain conditions, like the Fair Use Clause, or subject to royalties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johndoe98 

 

Wow you are really stretching here aren't you? Surely you understand the distinction between owning something and using something? Only I have the deed to my car, but I can let you drive it for a fee if you like. Similarly, the constitution says authors/creators own the exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries, but it never says that others can't make use of those patents/copyrights/trademarks under certain conditions, like the Fair Use Clause, or subject to royalties.

The fair use doctrine (not clause, btw) is a good example showing that while authors and inventors have many exclusive  rights, the right to exclude is not absolute.  Similar distinctions  exist in the area of mandatory licensing, the first sale doctrine, and the distinction between the rights of authors in  published as opposed to  unpublished works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

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

You simply don't want to understand what I'm saying. There are lots of tablets that look like the iPad, including the Samsung tablets.

THAT IS NOT THE POINT.

The point is would a reasonable person be confused into buying a Samsung tablet when they wanted to buy an iPad.

I maintain that you would have to be a complete moron to do that given that every tablet I've seen is clearly branded on the front and/or back of the product.

I don't care if the Samsung looks like the iPad. I really don't care. I hope Apple lose this case and all the other cases because I don't want to see an iPad monopoly. Competition breads innovation and keeps prices down.

I don't expect to have an objective discussion as there are just too many blinkered people on here.

No matter what you bunch of sycophants think, I hope Apple loses this case when it comes to court and we finally get some real competition in the tablet market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK 

 

Competition breads innovation and keeps prices down.

 

I don't expect to have an objective discussion as there are just too many blinkered people on here.

Competition might engender price wars but rarely *breeds* sustainable innovation.

Look at the PC industry. Dell, HP and Lenovo (IBM) have been competing for decades now. How much innovation has resulted? Generation after generation of PCs and servers simply adopted the latest processors from Intel and latest version of Windows from Microsoft. When Linux gained some momentum, then these companies started offering Linux servers. Competition amongst them did not drive any of them to innovate.

Look at the auto industry. Again, same pattern.

In both cases, innovation has mostly come from "outside".

This is what makes Apple unique - an established company that has enough of an innovative spirit to upend the industry, including its own business. Look at how it killed off the iPod Mini. Can anyone come up with an example of a company killing off its most successful product in a given category, when there was no viable competition?

Has competition compelled HP, Dell, Asus or anyone to come up with the equivalent of MacBook Air, unibody design or the iPad?

So no, competition does not usually breed true innovation. Not the revolutionary, sustainable kind. Instead, competition often kills off weaker players and eventually leads to a static ecosystem in which pricing becomes the primary battleground, while products undergo only incremental, organic improvement rather than major leaps in innovation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK 

No matter what you bunch of sycophants think, I hope Apple loses this case when it comes to court and we finally get some real competition in the tablet market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 

You're getting awfully close to crossing a line, if you haven't already. You might want to cool it on the name calling.

Agree. If, Shaun, you find folks here so objectionable, why dwell here? And you are not using the word sycophant in its correct context.

I agree with most people here that Samsung copied design elements of the iPhone and the iPad for its own products. I disagree with you in that I think that the copied design elements should not be patentable. A design patent should cover combinations of elements that are not obvious. So I think the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 should not be banned from being sold in the US but I do believe that iPad clones like this should be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ankleskater 

Huh?

 

I am specifically disagreeing with your statement that "innovation is not about invention, it is about the ability to make an invention ubiquitous through some extra non-inventive twists."

 

But never mind, I think you just want to appear to be winning a point. That's not so important, IMO. Hopefully, whether you admit to it or not, you now understand how innovation and inventiveness are similar and different. ;)

what part of 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ankleskater 

If you put original or inventive methods or processes into practice, you are being innovative. If you create a novel widget or process, you are being inventive.

is different than

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hiro 

 

The difference is innovation is not about invention, it is about the ability to make an invention ubiquitous through some extra non-inventive twists.  

 

"make an invention ubiquitous through some extra non-inventive twists" seems an awful lot like "put original or inventive methods or processes into practice"

 

 

So I used different words than followed up with, they mean essentially the same thing.  About the only room for interpretation is that my made ubiquitous requires your put into practice to be widely successful, not simply done to any degree.  

 

Can you just dispense with the violent part of violent agreement now? 

US Patent system screwed up by Apple likes.

http://www.i-programmer.info/news/83-mobliephone/4441-the-four-patents-that-apple-used-against-galaxy-nexusa-programmer-reads-the-patents.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK 

No matter what you bunch of sycophants think, I hope Apple loses this case when it comes to court and we finally get some real competition in the tablet market.

Do you know what a real competition looks like? Flooding market with cheap knock offs is not a real competition, it hurts the competition. Only sycophants think IP theft is good for competition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


What you said was:
"The fair use doctrine (not clause, btw) is a good example showing that while authors and inventors have many exclusive rights, the right to exclude is not absolute."
Now, authors are covered by copyrights and inventors are covered by patents. So you clearly were saying that fair use applied to patents.
But, then, you and logic apparently don't even have a nodding acquaintance.

Even assuming that I misspoke, do you care to address the main points, which concern Posner?  Or are you conceding on that one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjb 

US Patent system screwed up by Apple likes.

 

http://www.i-programmer.info/news/83-mobliephone/4441-the-four-patents-that-apple-used-against-galaxy-nexusa-programmer-reads-the-patents.html

Thanks for the link. Nice to see a plain-English explanation of the claims from those patents, especially from someone at least minimally qualified to understand them. If you assume the explanations are accurate there's a high-likelihood of these being stricken on re-exam. Heck, a huge percentage of patents used in litigation are invalidated in part or whole anyway. Doesn't really help the current situation of course if the patents are later found invalid in some way. The damage will be done long before that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK 

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

 

vs Newton OS (for all intents and purposes, co-released with the original Palm Pilot OS):

[with ninja props to @SolipsismX for picking the same graphic!]

And grid organized icons from Macintosh OS 1.0 circa 1984

We can go back to Doug Englebart and 1968 from there with visits to PARC extending Englebart's work (but deciding it wasn't worth the business to field-- oops!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK 

 

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

There was another thread where you trotted out he same images and got soundly overruled there too.   There are plain differences between static copying and design school inspiration.  The fact you can't admit those in your attempts to twist arguments is sad because it only shows blind adherence to a pathetic dogma.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hiro 

 

"make an invention ubiquitous through some extra non-inventive twists" seems an awful lot like "put original or inventive methods or processes into practice"

 

 

So I used different words than followed up with, they mean essentially the same thing.  About the only room for interpretation is that my made ubiquitous requires your put into practice to be widely successful, not simply done to any degree.  

 

Can you just dispense with the violent part of violent agreement now? 

 

Awful lot alike? Not the same thing at all!

Innovation is NOT "about the ability to make an invention ubiquitous through some extra non-inventive twists".  It is NOT an ability. It is NOT about ubiquity. It is NOT about "extra non-inventive twists".

Since this is the 3rd time I am saying this, I am giving up on you. Don't want to turn into one of those here who just repeat themselves over and over. I am simply not that dedicated to helping others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


MacRumors? 😷

I'd never paid much mind to MacRumors, but since you mentioned it I paid a quick visit. They have a comment thread on the exact same article as posted here. Almost 1000 comments, both sides of the aisle, and largely free of ad-homs from a quick peruse. Interesting.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1396398

Still no NYTimes reporting on this whole affair.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iSheldon 

Still no NYTimes reporting on this whole affair.

The NY Times is just another news outlet. They are grubbing for page views. If there's a news item that won't generate a large number of page views, they really aren't compelled to publish it.

I point this out since you repeatedly asked the same question "why am I not seeing this at NYTimes?"

Publication by the NY Times does not reflect a particular news item's validity, nor does NY Times publication give validity to any given news item.

Journalism died in the Nineties.

SolipsismX is correct if you are looking at reader involvement.

Comment quantity is not proportionally correlated with comment quality, especially at a Q&A forum like MacRumors which does not employ a community-based comment ranking system. It uses human forum moderation which scales poorly. (Yes, I know that many of the MR forum moderators participate here).

This is related to iSheldon's comment about the lack of commentary by the NY Times about a special news item. Coverage does not necessarily equate to quality, especially in 2012 when page views are king.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellacool 


Why do people equate writing checks as innovation? Apple didn't invent Siri, develop or have anything to do with it. They wrote a check for it. Smart, very, innovative, not very.

So your ignorance about product development is somehow a detriment to Apple. Cool.