Apple adds Samsung's flagship Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note to amended 'Galaxy Nexus' complaint - Page 8

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dvoraak 

Hold this post for as long as you like. I'll not be back, using this name.

There, fixed that for you...

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoeditor 

The stuff they're actually suing over, on the other hand, is abuse of the legal system. 

What abuse? Where?

If someone has a dispute or feel they've been wronged, they take the matter to court. That's why courts exist. 

And for all the bleating about Apple "abusing" the "legal system", isn't it interesting that it's also the "legal system" that has decided Apple's case has merit? So much merit, in fact, that it supported Apple's claims to the tune of over a billion dollars. 

In fact, this win shows it is incumbent upon Apple to pursue their claims further. It's in their best interests (and everyone's) to bring clarity to the question of exactly where everyone stands with their patents (or "alleged" patents.)

A lot of companies are already waking up to the fact that not all is well with their very cavalier activities in the market, that they have conveniently labeled "competition." Business-as-usual isn't good enough anymore. There's a serious problem with it. It took Apple to finally begin the process of house-cleaning in the industry. 

At some point there has to be a reckoning. It's happening now. Those who can't hang with the game shouldn't get any sympathy from anyone. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mocseg 

I'm sure you all already know where a so called genius Jony Ivy inspiration comes from, but for me this was a complete game changer back in 2007.

http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-apples-future

 

 

You're assuming incorrectly that the click wheel was invented by Ive.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 


You know I've seen this picture million times and I still don't get it. Does anyone confuse an iPod with a Braun thermostat? They look nothing alike except they're both white. This Braun own a patent on the color white?
 

Good points. Furthermore, it's well documented that Ive didn't come up with the click wheel concept himself. It was Phil Schiller's idea. And he isn't quite the Braun devotee that Ive is.

http://cheezburger.com/6549760768

Good picture, how true.
I've tested several phones before buying the Xperia X10 Mini pro and honestly I didn't remark the flip back nor the rounded corners. Still need to check my phone for the back flip which seems Samsung only.
But hey I bought it because:
- I could have bought 10 Xperia for the price of 1 Iphone
- it's smaller and lighter
- has more features

So saying I would have bought instead is insane. I simply don't have the money for such, sorry. I would have sticked to my 10 years old Sony/Ericsson.
The whole indemnity is ridiculous to the max.

The verdict was okay, that Samsung has to pay for copying design and UI, but now is pure Apple madness.

The Slide to Unlock patent, really? In european courts is been thrown out, because a Swedish Smartphone had as a feature it in 2005, and in the firmware it was born with, said "slide to unlock" and all other Apple software patents did not infringe. (HTC and Samsung cases)

Goto 4.00 min. in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0

Apple gets patent on the Wedge Form Design in 2012, which Sony designed in 2004

http://www.dailytech.com/Virtually+Every+Ultrabook+Appears+to+Violate+New+Apple+Patent/article24886.htm

Over 40 years of developing multi touch

http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

and then

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JZBLjxPBUU

So I think thats Apple has got wrong patents, because much of the stuff has been seen before and it gives a picture that Apple will use the US courts to keep out competition on the smartphone and ultrabooks market, instead of innovation(that they used to be known for).

As I see it High end Andriods miles ahead and IOS6 is basicly a rip off of Android, Google maps/latitude (find my friends), SamsungDive (find my phone), Chrome (iTabs), S2(reply with text and reminder), tasker app (Don't disturb) and S-Voice(open apps)

PS. Sorry for my spelling I'm a Dane!

^^^^

If you're going to set up alt accounts on AI just to troll, at least make it less obvious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 


You know I've seen this picture million times and I still don't get it. Does anyone confuse an iPod with a Braun thermostat? They look nothing alike except they're both white. This Braun own a patent on the color white?
And before anyone chimes in with 'the Galaxy S III looks nothing like an iPhone', many of the patent issues Apple has with Samsung have nothing to do with the look and feel of the hardware but are software related.

No, this has nothing to do directly with apple vs samsung patent war. For me It was just a game changer - suddenly so called "revolutionary genius-creative design" from Jony Ive wasn't so  "revolutionary genius-creative design " anymore. That's all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mocseg 

No, this has nothing to do directly with apple vs samsung patent war. For me It was just a game changer - suddenly so called "revolutionary genius-creative design" from Jony Ive wasn't so  "revolutionary genius-creative design " anymore. That's all.

It was certainly that, for an MP3 player. 

Off the topic, but I have a question.

Is it really true that the music tracks and movies that you buy from iTunes are not your property?  ?%$#?

Bruce Willies is suing Apple.

http://www.macworld.co.uk/digitallifestyle/news/?newsid=3379054

Quote:

Originally Posted by xgman 

Well this just helped me to finally decide to ditch the iPhone and get the galaxy s3. Apple is a big bully and I don't want to support this sort of thing.

What if Apple wins this suit also?  Then you support thieves?  How does that make any sense?

Since Apple has plenty of money, it's ok for Samsung to steal from them and then sell their stolen product.  < Your justification of theft.  Not very nice.

The Robin Hood approach may seem valiant on paper.....but in the real world stealing gets you fined or imprisoned, depending on if you're a person or corporation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


The ownership is no different than CD music or DVD video one might buy. The only difference is the ability to transfer the content you don't own on the physical media you do own isn't possible since digital downloads are distributed to an account holder not to a physical piece of plastic.
What we need is a way for our content to be transferable without being copyable. However, that's not up to Apple, is it. You also now have iTS music that is DRM-free so you can copy at will.
Bottom line is that Apple will say to give them your email address and iTS password in your will and they will have access to the content. There is no law saying that the content of a digital online store requires that a single customer have a single login when they are gifted someone else's digital account content.
That said, as this form of distribution grows it would be nice if splitting and merging accounts became feasible. Do you start your 6yo with their own iTS account or let them use yours until their old enough?

Thanks, but sorry it does not make sense to me.

I have not thought about it.  But, should I be able to transfer any contents that I bought from iTunes to anyone I like?  (I am talking about musics, movies and books.)  

Quote:

Originally Posted by technohermit 

What if Apple wins this suit also?  Then you support thieves?  How does that make any sense?

 

Since Apple has plenty of money, it's ok for Samsung to steal from them and then sell their stolen product.  < Your justification of theft.  Not very nice.

 

The Robin Hood approach may seem valiant on paper.....but in the real world stealing gets you fined or imprisoned, depending on if you're a person or corporation.

The galaxy S3 and Note 10.1 doesn't look or feel anything like Iphone or an Ipad, they are much more advanced, thats why Apple's new lawsuits suck.

With the new Bogus infringment claims it looks like Apple clearly want to stop smartphones that are alot better, than there product.

If Apple also wins this trial, then the US patent system really sucks big time!

You dont hear Audi/VW that invented TDI (twin-turbocharged direct injection diesel engine) whines about that any other car manufacturer make the same kind of the TDI tech. with different names, Audi/VW just makes it better and better, that called compitition!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedling 

 

The galaxy S3 and Note 10.1 doesn't look or feel anything like Iphone or an Ipad, they are much more advanced, thats why Apple's new lawsuits suck.

With the new Bogus infringment claims it looks like Apple clearly want to stop smartphones that are alot better, than there product.

 

If Apple also wins this trial, then the US patent system really sucks big time!

Translation:

I mean, it either sucks or it doesn't (the correct answer being doesn't) why would it only conditionally suck (or not suck) based on who wins a particular trial?

At least try to pretend to be rational when you come to post this nonsense here for your team.

Originally Posted by Pedling 
…they are much more advanced, thats why Apple's new lawsuits suck. With the new Bogus infringment claims it looks like Apple clearly want to stop smartphones that are alot better, than there product.

Thanks for throwing your credibility out the window early. Wish we had a badge we could stick on users so that this would be apparent, though… 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedling 

 

The galaxy S3 and Note 10.1 doesn't look or feel anything like Iphone or an Ipad, they are much more advanced, thats why Apple's new lawsuits suck.

With the new Bogus infringment claims it looks like Apple clearly want to stop smartphones that are alot better, than there product.

 

If Apple also wins this trial, then the US patent system really sucks big time!

 

You dont hear Audi/VW that invented TDI (twin-turbocharged direct injection diesel engine) whines about that any other car manufacturer make the same kind of the TDI tech. with different names, Audi/VW just makes it better and better, that called compitition!

Are the trolls still crying? wow youd think theyd be dehydrated by now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

 

Translation:

 

 

I mean, it either sucks or it doesn't (the correct answer being doesn't) why would it only conditionally suck (or not suck) based on who wins a particular trial?

 

At least try to pretend to be rational when you come to post this nonsense here for your team.

As I written before I think is fair, that Sammy has to pay for Copying Designs and UI, but now its got ridicolus..

In the EU Apple has lost there software patents law suits to HTC and Samsung "Slide to unlock" has been seen before.....

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18709232

Yeah so of cause I want HTC, Sammy and Moto to be acquitted of Apple Madness...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedling 

 

As I written before I think is fair, that Sammy has to pay for Copying Designs and UI, but now its got ridicolus..

 

[bunch of stuff about the EU irrelevant to the discussion at hand]

So, let's get this straight. Samsung was, in fact, as found by a US jury, guilty of patent infringement and should pay up (which includes removing infringing devices from the market). But, because they made some devices bigger, those devices aren't infringing because they are bigger, and applying that judgment to those devices is ridiculous?

Explain to us exactly how the larger size of these devices causes them to somehow not infringe the patents Samsung has been found guilty of infringing. Your explanation should include facts, some amount of logic and a generally well reasoned argument, and should not be based on any sort of magical thinking or emotionally based assertions.

The S3, Note and note 10.1, there is no way that you can mistake it for an Apple product, thats why Apple has some new Patents infringements to claim and not the same infringements claims that Sammy Lost to cpoy design and UI patents. And why was the "Slide to unlock patent" in first lawsuit?

The new patent claims.

'647 "Data Detectors" patent - A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data.

?????

'721 "Slide-to-unlock" patent - A device with a touch-sensitive display may be unlocked via gestures performed on the touch-sensitive display.
Neonode n1m 2005.

'172 "Word completion" invention - Method, system and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_text#Companies_and_products

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_completion

http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_ericsson_t68i-325.php look under features!

'604 "Universal search" patent - The present invention provides convenient access to the items of information that are related to various descriptors input by a user, by means of a unitary interface which is capable of accessing information in a variety of locations, through a number of different techniques.

(it has been made customized in S3/Jelly Bean, that I has to set which kind of search results I want, from phone (music, email, sms, Contacts, etc.etc which by default is off) or/and the Web.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedling 

The S3, Note and note 10.1, there is no way that you can mistake it for an Apple product, thats why Apple has some new Patents infringements to claim and not the same infringements claims that Sammy Lost to cpoy design and UI patents. And why was the "Slide to unlock patent" in first lawsuit?

 

The new patent claims.

 

'647 "Data Detectors" patent - A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data.

?????

'721 "Slide-to-unlock" patent - A device with a touch-sensitive display may be unlocked via gestures performed on the touch-sensitive display.
Neonode n1m 2005.

 

'172 "Word completion" invention - Method, system and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_text#Companies_and_products

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_completion

http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_ericsson_t68i-325.php look under features!

 

 

'604 "Universal search" patent - The present invention provides convenient access to the items of information that are related to various descriptors input by a user, by means of a unitary interface which is capable of accessing information in a variety of locations, through a number of different techniques.

(it has been made customized in S3/Jelly Bean, that I has to set which kind of search results I want, from phone (music, email, sms, Contacts, etc.etc which by default is off) or/and the Web.

So, as you yourself point out, it's not just design patents that Samsung is infringing. And it wasn't just design patents they were found to infringe. So, it seems entirely logical that they would be banned for violating Apple's utility patents, which the size of the device has no bearing on. What you've listed above are simply 4 additional utility patents that Apple has added to the complaint. Seems like another slam dunk.

We can only imagine the number of new nonsense lawsuits Apple will brew up, all thanks to a jury foreman who didn't understand prior art.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo42 

We can only imagine the number of new nonsense lawsuits Apple will brew up, all thanks to a jury foreman who didn't understand prior art.

Yes, Samsung, we've seen the "slander the jury foreman" angle from you before. It didn't fly then, it won't fly now. You are thieves without honor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

 

Find it as offensive as you want. The American companies aren't stealing IP from the South Korean companies. And, please, let's not pretend that South Korea hasn't benefited enormously from American blood and money, that's offensive. Not rather offensive, disgustingly offensive, sickeningly offensive.

Did you serve? Did you give you time, sweat and blood to the protection of another country? I know I did. I served in South Korea and even volunteered to stay additional tours (don't forget the disabled Vet part thanks to a back injury). So don't play the "offended victim BS card".  The people there are just like anyone else. I have seen just as many jerks in the U.S. as Korea. Many of these patents shouldn't have been given in the first place, and some should have. Slide to open...BS...prior art exists. Pinch to zoom....prior art exists....more BS. Rubberbanding...probably okay. Tap to zoom....yes....Samsung, pay up. But banning the SIII sounds like nothing but an attempt to use the courts to kill competition...and this goes for Korea possibly banning iPhone sales. This is the kind of nonsense we don't need.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahblade 


I agree, but not "purely due".... Companies like Samsung (leader), with the business plan of copying and not just beening similar, but out right copying. was a good percentage of the reason for Sony fall from the top. The difference with Apple is upper management have the balls and a big big cash reserve to fight back Samsung tactics. This fight is not just about current wrongs but to prevent future blatant copying. Don't get me wrong they all including apple "borrow" from each other but it becomes a different story when someone just copy.

This is no different from the Japanese taking an idea created elsewhere (1950s-1980s as an example - but all throughout their history to be more precise) and greatly improving upon it at a lower cost. Korea simple did the same thing in modern times at an even lower cost. That isn't copying/stealing IP. Samsung/LG/etc didn't steal Sony's ideas or IP. They simply made a better TV at a lower cost - go economies of scale. Same thing with Netflix killing off Blockbuster...and now Netflix feeling the heat. No different that Apple copying (not stealing IP) the idea of a portable mp3 player from Creative and making a better version of it. The hubris part regarding Sony has to deal with Sony not wanting to get into the digital music market at the time (wanting too much control for one thing - ATRAC - and believing no one else could take the portable music scene from them) therefore leaving the door open for Apple. Sony makes some fantastic mp3 players (the good ones never make it to the US...what is the point now?) which sound so much better than anything Apple has to offer...but they are too expensive compared to iPods. People don't care about sound quality anymore, they care about accessibility, ease of use and low price. I am just as guilty of that. I gave up on importing Sony mp3 players because the sound quality on the iPod was "good enough for government work".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

All of the ignorant people who defend Samsung have chosen their path, and their path is one of ignorance and one that follows the dark side.

So those who buy Samsung TVs, Samsung washer and dryers, buy oil tankers built by Samsung, buy insurance from Samsung (do you realize how big the Samsung family of companies really is?), etc... all are ignorant and follow an evil path. Tone down the BS hyperbole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


If it's so trivial to get around the patents, why hasn't anyone done so? Some estimates say that Samsung spent well over $50 M on legal expenses for the California case (not counting the $1 B in fines). So why didn't they simply work around the patents if it was so easy?
The most likely scenario is that it's not as easy as you and all the other Samsung shills claim.
The other possibility is that even if they can work around the patents, they believe it will cost them more in lost sales than their paid shill army claims. Clearly, it would have SOME impact since so many Tab tablets were returned to Best Buy when people found out that they weren't iPads (by Samsung's own testimony).
So, again, if it's trivial to get around the patents and it wouldn't cost Samsung any business, why haven't they done so?
In the REAL world, though, there is ample evidence that Samsung's blatant copying was done intentionally with the hope of confusing the market and obtaining more sales than they would have otherwise. Their rapid growth in market share while all of the other competitors (who weren't as obvious about copying Apple) confirms that.

Shills, really? JHFC the stupidity.

More likely Samsung didn't feel that those patents deserved to be awarded. I believe several of those patents will be invalidated due to prior art. As mentioned by others these patents complaints are holding up so well for Apple in countries other than the U.S. The US only has about 400 million people. While Apple may win a case in a court a few miles from the company by people who want to support the U.S. over foreign companies (don't tell me that didn't play a role - that is what happens in such a case in the U.S. - the local company is usually supported) but that won't change the fact that the U.S. only accounts for about 6% of the world population. Samsung will be just fine no matter how much Apple rages...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harbinger 

Good points. Furthermore, it's well documented that Ive didn't come up with the click wheel concept himself. It was Phil Schiller's idea. And he isn't quite the Braun devotee that Ive is.

That was a Braun portable radio, not a thermostat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


You can. Just set them up as one of your 5 authorized computers.
Apple doesn't have to allow unlimited distribution. In fact, it's pretty obvious that the record labels would never go for unlimited distribution.
Willis is an idiot. It's no different than buying one of his DVDs. You own the physical media (the DVD in one case and the computer hard drive in the other) and only get the rights that are granted to you under the license. In both cases, that does not include the right to copy nor does it include the right to play the item in public.
And if Willis' lawyer takes the case, he should be immediately disbarred for incompetence. If he can't see that the two situations are nearly the same, he has no business practicing law.

BUT...the law does allow the sale and resale of used CDs as well as passing them on to someone else after death. That is NOT the same as distribution...there is only one copy. Using that reasoning, he should be able to pass on the rights of those songs to his kids when he dies. Whether is be a physical CD or a file (still physical) he should be able to pass them on....except the RIAA and Apple want to stop this so that people are forced to buy new songs. Maybe if all our CDs and DVDs had to be destroyed when we passed this would make sense. As it is....it is just money grubbing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

 

Yes, Samsung, we've seen the "slander the jury foreman" angle from you before. It didn't fly then, it won't fly now. You are thieves without honor.

Here's what Mr. Hogan said regarding prior art:

Interchangeability is not a requirement for prior art to invalidate a patent.  Is there something else that needs to be explained?  

Also, cute how you addressed me as Samsung, though I have absolutely no affiliation with the company, whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

 

So, as you yourself point out, it's not just design patents that Samsung is infringing. And it wasn't just design patents they were found to infringe. So, it seems entirely logical that they would be banned for violating Apple's utility patents, which the size of the device has no bearing on. What you've listed above are simply 4 additional utility patents that Apple has added to the complaint. Seems like another slam dunk.

My question is this: Does a patent stop anyone from making the same product or a similar product. Example? Does this mean that NOBODY can every use word completion software for the next almost 20 years since Apple has the patent on it....OR...does it mean that a competitor cannot steal the code and use it in their device? If someone writes DIFFERENT code to accomplish the same word completion action are they at risk?

This is the problem with software patents. I could patent a shovel DESIGN that no one else could manufacture, but others can make another shovel (that still digs just fine) that looks different and I cannot sue them. So, how is this different from (example) word completion software? Wouldn't someone else just need to do it in a different way to accomplish the same goal? As it stands Apple claims NO ONE can use word completion software (as an example). This seems to be a misuse of the patent system...a system that WAS NOT designed with software patents in mind. Many of these patents Apple is complaining about look like they should be FRAND patents. Everyone should be able to add a word completion capability to their phones and computers. IF Apple can prove they were the first to invent this idea, they deserve to be paid a fair rate (FRAND), but not some astronomical figure of $30 - $40 a phone. Crazy.

Look at Samsung and Sony TVs. The new ones have powerful new features...run by a menuing system. The menus are different but accomplish the same thing. Steering wheels...different appearance, but the same capabilities. No company should be able to ban the sales of other devices for such an infraction. Make them pay a REASONABLE licensing fee, sure. If Apple (and others) can stop others from using (same example) word completion...then they are limiting the choice of the customer: Use Apple products if you are lazy and cannot spell....or use EVERYONE else's devices and suck it up - type it all out and get an education ...you...you...non-errr..nonn-spellar...you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lamewing 

My question is this: Does a patent stop anyone from making the same product or a similar product. Example? Does this mean that NOBODY can every use word completion software for the next almost 20 years since Apple has the patent on it....OR...does it mean that a competitor cannot steal the code and use it in their device? If someone writes DIFFERENT code to accomplish the same word completion action are they at risk?

 

Either way the code is actually protected by copyright, not a software patent. The implementation (often more of a concept) is what is patented. If you read one of these, they contain an extensive description of how such a thing may be used at times. If you want to know what is protected, look for where it says, "What is claimed is..".

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

 

Yes, Samsung, we've seen the "slander the jury foreman" angle from you before. It didn't fly then, it won't fly now. You are thieves without honor.

Oh... is there an honor if you became a thief?  Samsung will be happy about that.

Apple didn't need lawyers for a North California jury, only someone to chant: USA, USA, USA

Originally Posted by bataillon 
Apple didn't need lawyers for a North California jury, only someone to chant: USA, USA, USA

You'd prefer an American lawsuit to take place in a different country?

So if you committed a crime in the US, you'd want to be tried in… European court. Or somewhere that sharia law is used. You think that works out, then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

You'd prefer an American lawsuit to take place in a different country?

So if you committed a crime in the US, you'd want to be tried in… European court. Or somewhere that sharia law is used. You think that works out, then?

If the concern was that an unbiased trial could not be held in Northern California, Samsung could have filed a request for a change of venue. I never read a request for one. My biggest issue on here is that people determine fairness by whether they're happy with a verdict. I only care how the process was carried out, and yes the jury was stupid in this regard. I don't have an issue with their conclusion. They did make mistakes on how things work. They never asked questions. There's no way to read through and discuss that much material in three days. They most likely just wanted to get back to their normal lives. It's also not just on the foreman. It's a collective failure when you believe someone without asking questions, although I don't know if that will be the thing that drags out the appeals process.

apple should stop worrying about samsung and worry about these guys .

http://android-sale.com/goophone-i5.html

Originally Posted by vitaminjayz 
apple should stop worrying about samsung and worry about these guys .

 

http://android-sale.com/goophone-i5.html

Worry about the guys that stole intellectual property and corporate secrets from them? The guys who, when they sue Apple, will wind up in jail and their companies and families bankrupted? Why?