or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple injunction against Galaxy S III would give Samsung 'big problems'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple injunction against Galaxy S III would give Samsung 'big problems' - Page 2

post #41 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrakeX View Post

Samsung: We’re working on an Apple attack with Google.
http://bit.ly/MDkUAj

I'm so sick of Samsung!

Funny how more and more Google really looks like the Dr Evil behind all these machinations with HTC, Motorola and Samsung their puppets ~ you know the guys that get killed in the Bond movies while Dr Evil escapes in his private rocket.

But now, Google has handcuffed itself to Motorola Mobility.  Is there room for two in that rocket?

post #42 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Why innovate when you can litigate?

Yeah, that's the Fandroid Mantra when confronted with the unpleasant reality that Samsung has ripped off Apple's IP but I have a more accurate mantra.

When you don't innovate, litigation will force you to innovate

That applies to Apple as well when they copy others but in the end, we the consumers get the innovation.
post #43 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

But now, Google has handcuffed itself to Motorola Mobility.  Is there room for two in that rocket?

Nope, only Google gets to blast off. Motorola, HTC, Samsung, all meet gruesome ends before Bond gets to the rocket, only to see Google give him the finger as they disappear into the dark night sky. Motorola might be "Jaws" or one of the super-bad henchmen, which still bites the dust in the end despite gallant blind loyalty.

Now the real question is who's the evil white furry cat that gets to be in Google's lap from start to finish, maybe even to reappear in the sequel. Any guesses?
post #44 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

Why? There are billions of dollars at stake. This is what the courts are there for. 

They are not there to be used as tools for marketing gain or leverage and that is exactly what is happening on both sides.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


"Copy each other?" BS. Show us the evidence. Just because you can claim something nonsensical in an internet forum doesn't make it true or right.

I'm not going to get into an online argument over something as petty as this and I don't need to prove anything.  The information is out there for all to see, do your own research (and preferably on sites that are truly impartial).  I'm not going to defend either side because they're both at fault but if you think that one side developed a technology/feature/method that is truly unique and retains the obligation to be defended in this way then you're being naive.

post #45 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by IHateScreenNames View Post

I never understand the "this stifles innovation" argument.  No, it doesn't.

They do, actually. The time people spend footing around inane overly broad software and procedure patents is time they could have spent doing something innovative. Sure, they might come up with an original solution to that problem, but that's still time they could have spent doing something else. Also, the patent quagmire can prevent smaller companies from competing as the larger companies will attempt to crush them with ridiculous patents (and frequently succeed in doing so), stifling innovating in a much more meaningful way. And then there's the money and resources that go into litigation instead of development or innovation. Companies which try to secure their position through litigation instead of competing as their market evolves. The list goes on.

The system is broken. I'm not railing against Apple, here. They're just playing ball by the rules (and much more cleanly than some of their competitors as as least Apple is depending on patents they came up with unlike those who fight with purchased patent portfolios). But there's no reason to pretend that it doesn't stifle innovation.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #46 of 134

If the Nexus Galaxy injunction will require Apple to post a bond of almost $100 million, how big a bond will it require for an injunction of Galaxy S III?

 

A $1 billion?

 

This is fast becoming a high stakes game.

post #47 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Oh well. It coulda been Sammy doing that keynote in June 2007...

 

I believe you mean January of 2007

post #48 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrakeX View Post

Samsung: We’re working on an Apple attack with Google.

http://bit.ly/MDkUAj

 

I'm so sick of Samsung!

Google/Samsung attack so far has been based on either getting Apple to pay excessively high royalties for licensing their standards-essential patents, or getting injunctive relief if Apple does not agree to their blackmail.  U.S. courts will never grant an injunction for the use of standards essential patents.  Germany may.  Remains to be seen.

post #49 of 134

I'd love for this phone to be banned, the ensuing butthurt would be hilarious.

post #50 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post


Yeah, that's the Fandroid Mantra when confronted with the unpleasant reality that Samsung has ripped off Apple's IP but I have a more accurate mantra.
When you don't innovate, litigation will force you to innovate
That applies to Apple as well when they copy others but in the end, we the consumers get the innovation.

 

You misunderstand me. I would be just as disgusted if Samsung had "won" an injunction against the iPhone. My disgust is not necessarily directed at Apple, but at the archaic, broken patent and IP system enforced by incompetent government.

 

Reduce the size, scope, and power of government in this area and these companies must succeed or fail on their own merits. Now there's a thought.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #51 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You misunderstand me. I would be just as disgusted if Samsung had "won" an injunction against the iPhone. My disgust is not necessarily directed at Apple, but at the archaic, broken patent and IP system enforced by incompetent government.

As broken as the patent system is, I'm not sad about any victory scored against Samsung. They're big on copying aspects of their competitors to break into a market (we're all familiar with numerous mobile computing examples, I'll imagine) and this extends far beyond their history in the mobile computing world. You can find examples related to appliances and various other markets Samsung has entered. And so far it has worked out nicely for them, and might even work out for them here, too.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #52 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

 

It's incredible that you can you patent something so vague as this. No wonder the system is in such a mess.

 

The patent is really not as vague as the title makes it sound, but the title isn't long enough to convey any details.  Follow the link and read the abstract.  I think it is sufficiently detailed.

 

Thompson

post #53 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I doubt he'd deny that Samsung brazenly copies Apple 

Correct, I don't disagree. I think most of that copying will be past-tense now. Apple's made their point, tho that doesn't mean they intend to let up yet.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #54 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

The patent is really not as vague as the title makes it sound, but the title isn't long enough to convey any details.  Follow the link and read the abstract.  I think it is sufficiently detailed.

 

"A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data. The system provides an analyzer server, an application program interface, a user interface and an action processor. The analyzer server receives from an application running concurrently data having recognizable structures, uses a pattern analysis unit, such as a parser or fast string search function, to detect structures in the data, and links relevant actions to the detected structures. The application program interface communicates with the application running concurrently, and transmits relevant information to the user interface. Thus, the user interface can present and enable selection of the detected structures, and upon selection of a detected structure, present the linked candidate actions. Upon selection of an action, the action processor performs the action on the detected structure."

 

Yes that's much clearer. Not  lol

post #55 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by IHateScreenNames View Post

 

I never understand the "this stifles innovation" argument.  No, it doesn't.  

 

Let's say Apple has patented a method to achieve a desired result.  If Samsung wants to do something similar and get a similar result without infringing Apple's patent they would have to innovate and come up with their own solution.

 

Patents don't stifle innovation, they encourage it.

 

If you see it differently, please explain.  I truly never understand that line of argument.

 

 

Nor can I. To be honest, it's the "cool" thing to say at the moment. I think people need to be "innovative", and find a new tag line.

post #56 of 134

Google was Samsung's saving grace. Anyone remember Samsungs first iPhone knock off attempt --the  Samsung Instinct? *shudders*

post #57 of 134

Lawsuits: Because innovating and competing is just too hard.

post #58 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravage View Post

Lawsuits: Because innovating and competing is just too hard.

Trolling on a website about products you hate made by a company you hate: Because taking the time to have an actual argument or being intelligent enough to not visit these sites is just too hard.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #59 of 134
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

Why is this even being mentioned because it's not going to happen.  Apple won't be able to stop the Galaxy S III from being sold.  And even if they did temporarily, it would probably be easy enough for Samsung or Google to make whatever changes are necessary in a relatively short time.  I'm willing to bet that most users wouldn't even care if changes were made.

Apple's goal is likely to reduce the commoditization of their designs and features so they can retain their premium brand and experience. No expectation that they can prevent Samsung from selling phones.
post #60 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravage View Post

Lawsuits: Because innovating and competing is just too hard.

 

Well hey, as long as it's cheaper to use government to shut down your competition than have to actually compete with them, why not?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #61 of 134

This kills me every time! lol.gif

post #62 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by IHateScreenNames View Post

 

I never understand the "this stifles innovation" argument.  No, it doesn't.  

 

Let's say Apple has patented a method to achieve a desired result.  If Samsung wants to do something similar and get a similar result without infringing Apple's patent they would have to innovate and come up with their own solution.

 

Patents don't stifle innovation, they encourage it.

 

If you see it differently, please explain.  I truly never understand that line of argument.

There's nothing to understand. You're spot on. It's the "stifles innovation" crowd that inhabits la-la land.

post #63 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

What about the SIII is Samsung copying? What could Apple feasibly get an injunction for?

Is it not obvious from the text of the AI article!?

 

What did Apple get the current injunctions for? Has Samsung implemented something different in S3 compared to the S on those?

post #64 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I think most of that copying will be past-tense now.

What evidence or argument do you have to back up that conjecture? Because the hardware of the S3 looks different?

post #65 of 134

Apple has over $100B in cash, so no worries.

post #66 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrakaJap View Post

 

I'm not going to get into an online argument over something as petty as this and I don't need to prove anything.  The information is out there for all to see, do your own research (and preferably on sites that are truly impartial).  I'm not going to defend either side because they're both at fault but if you think that one side developed a technology/feature/method that is truly unique and retains the obligation to be defended in this way then you're being naive.

You simply have no evidence. That's the bottom line. Move along.

post #67 of 134
Assuming you're talking about the Connery and Moore iterations of James Bond, he got them all. Even Blofeld (For Your Eyes Only.).

btw Dr. Evil was Austin Powers' menace (and 10x funnier).
post #68 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Is it not obvious from the text of the AI article!?

What did Apple get the current injunctions for? Has Samsung implemented something different in S3 compared to the S on those?

The article lists the patents for the claim but they seem not to be that effective if they aren't glaringly obvious. I'm guessing that the SIII will not suffer the same fate as the Galaxy Tab 10.1

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #69 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

You simply have no evidence. That's the bottom line. Move along.

I'm simply not going to take on "your" responsibilities as a consumer.  But if ignoring the facts because someone doesn't post "proof" in a biased forum makes you feel better then so be it.

post #70 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


It's the same with all companies.

 

 

Not true. Lots of companies like to license. Microsoft for instance. 

post #71 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

Why is this even being mentioned because it's not going to happen.  Apple won't be able to stop the Galaxy S III from being sold.  And even if they did temporarily, it would probably be easy enough for Samsung or Google to make whatever changes are necessary in a relatively short time.  I'm willing to bet that most users wouldn't even care if changes were made.

Yeah and weren't you one of the ones who said Apple would never get an injunction against the Tab and Nexus?

The fact is that the SIII uses the same features as the Nexus, so it's not at all improbably that the injunction will be extended to cover the SIII.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Or not in this case as it is a tech issue and not a design one.
The only way for Samsung to quickly get out of this would have been to agree that said tech was part of Android that Google created, not them. So Apple should be suing Google not them. But that time has passed.

Agreeing that the tech was in Google wouldn't help them. They're still selling it.
"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 #72 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


The article lists the patents for the claim but they seem not to be that effective if they aren't glaringly obvious. I'm guessing that the SIII will not suffer the same fate as the Galaxy Tab 10.1

 

The injunctions are based on a Siri patent, that the SIII also infringes on. So, if the judge issued an injunction on the Galaxy tabs, she should issue it on the SIII as well. 

post #73 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What evidence or argument do you have to back up that conjecture? Because the hardware of the S3 looks different?

No, common sense.

 

It's obvious Apple has been particularly aggressive on "look and feel" design patents both here and in Europe, apparently in the belief it was their fastest way to an injunction. I'd be darn surprised if Samsung wants to risk any more product delays when it's fairly easy to avoid one.

 

As for the utility patents, there's not a lot that can be done. Based on IP case averages it's highly unlikely that all four patents that Apple is asserting in this case will hold up to review in their entirety. And again, based on patent litigation averages, there's over a 90% chance that the patent office will find compelling reasons why some or all of these may not have been properly vetted and approved in the first place and order reexaminations. 

 

So now it becomes do they remove functions simply because Apple received a patent that they may believe won't survive re-exam, but risk an injunction in the meantime? Requesting and completing a patent reexamination is time-consuming. I personally don't think Samsung believed a court would bar any of their products on the basis of those particular patents. I'm reasonably sure even Apple, with the experienced legal teams they are using, expects them to be narrowed with a possibility of even being deemed invalid in whole over the course of this litigation. They do seem especially broad and non-specific to me but I'm no software engineer. It's a sticky situation. 


Edited by Gatorguy - 7/2/12 at 11:36am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #74 of 134

This has been making the rounds in social networks:

 

Sam.Apple_.001-620x465.jpg

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #75 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

This has been making the rounds in social networks:

And one wonders why I don't use social networking…

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #76 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

This has been making the rounds in social networks:

 

Sam.Apple_.001-620x465.jpg

 

iPhone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Google Chrome_2012-07-02_13-49-11.jpg

 

Kind of similar but I'm guessing the iPhone design was finalized before the Samsung unveiling.

 

EDIT - Actually, Wikipedia tells me this phone wasn't unveiled until February 2008.


Edited by alcstarheel - 7/2/12 at 11:55am
You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
post #77 of 134
Damn, this article contains very little new information. It's troll baiting, after that successfully long weekend thread on virtually the same topic.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #78 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcstarheel View Post

 

iPhone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Google Chrome_2012-07-02_13-49-11.jpg

 

Kind of similar but I'm guessing the iPhone design was finalized before the Samsung unveiling.

 

But who got the patent on the design first?

 

According to Wikipedia, Samsung filed a design patent for the F700 in 2006.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #79 of 134
Excellent

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #80 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

This has been making the rounds in social networks:

 

 

 

Good find. That will have a few people spitting feathers on here lol

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple injunction against Galaxy S III would give Samsung 'big problems'