or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ITC judge: Samsung should post massive bond ahead of US sales ban
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ITC judge: Samsung should post massive bond ahead of US sales ban - Page 3

post #81 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Cuz ain't shit goin on in Android world yo

Looks like some people, have realised that google did try and copy apple, but no where near as close as Samsung have tried to make their product. Unfortunately, sometimes that is too close and oops now others have seen through the smoke screen and are not happy. Oh we'll I guess smoke screens and the sword of litigation don't mix. Which neither do pro apple websites and people who clearly are not that keen on Apple or its product. That's Ok but can I suggest they go to a pro android website, although if I was not a iOS devotee I would be more likely to consider windows 8. For once M$ did there own thing 1smile.gif
post #82 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

The worst example of misleading advertising on a smartphone is Samsung's NFC transferring a video by kissing phones for about 2 seconds. That must be some absurdly impressive data bandwidth and transfer rates, Samsung.
That's not true. The GS3 uses NFC to initiate contact, but then uses WiFi Direct to do the actual transfer.

However, it's not all good news. Jelly Bean uses Bluetooth to transfer after using NFC to initiate. Faster than NFC but still very slow compared to WiFi.

Samsung's system is called S-Beam and it NOT compatible with Android Beam. Which is quite stupid if you think about it. A Galaxy Nexus can't enjoy fast transfer rates with a GS3 because they use different systems. More fragmentation.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #83 of 123

One thing I find interesting is that we are not seeing the postings from people saying that Samsung did not copy from Apple. Maybe that silly line of thought has been finally put to rest by most of the anti-Apple crowd for now.

 

Another interesting thing to look for is how Samsung innovates with their tablets and phones from here. Samsung took/stole/copied stuff from Apple because Apple used Samsung as a supplier for many components and because of that, Samsung was able to possibly get a jump ahead of the other Android phone/tablet makers on copying stuff they knew Apple was going to implement. With Apple moving more and more of their supply chain away from Samsung, that will become much more difficult for Samsung. Since there is usually a  year or two worth of lead time from conception to development of finished product, it will be interesting to see what new products come out from Samsung in another 2 years and how they diverge from their present designs and how much they diverge from Apple's designs.

post #84 of 123
Apple stock is up almost 3% so far toda, while the markets overall are pretty flat.. I wonder if this is part of the reason why?
post #85 of 123
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
Apple stock is up almost 3% so far toda, while the markets overall are pretty flat.. I wonder if this is part of the reason why?

 

Apple stock going UP is a complete fluke. Combined with their failure to sell any products, fears over the fiscal cliff, their pathetic customer satisfaction, and the lack of profit made on their devices, it's impossible to say what could cause it to go up. Someone probably hit the wrong key.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #86 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

The worst example of misleading advertising on a smartphone is Samsung's NFC transferring a video by kissing phones for about 2 seconds. That must be some absurdly impressive data bandwidth and transfer rates, Samsung.

 

They only have to touch for a couple of seconds for NFC to set up a faster communication path;   after that they can move away while the transfer takes place.  It can be pretty fast.

 

--

 

Still, there's usually some time compression in most ads these days.  Consumers should be smart enough to be aware of ad hype, but there's always a group that will complain.

 

For example, take the Apple Siri ads.   All sorts of lawsuits and class actions popped up because the ads made Siri look fast and foolproof.

 

--

 

That's why they're also supposed to have a notice explaining that the timeline was sped up (assuming it was).

 

However, sometimes even the notice isn't enough. In the UK, an Apple ad about downloading apps was pulled even though it had the small notice, "Steps removed and sequence shortened. Network speeds may vary."    The Apple disclaimer was seen as too broad, since the ad's intent was to show how quick and easy buying an app was... and with some steps removed, it wasn't true to life even if sped up.


Edited by KDarling - 12/31/12 at 8:09am
post #87 of 123
Originally Posted by Nathillien View Post
What a load of air puff. 1rolleyes.gif

 

What was wrong there?


Originally Posted by TBell View Post
I think it more fair to say, Google is a marketing company. 

 

Google is the owner of a brothel and we are her prostitutes.

 

 

Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

For example, take the Apple Siri ads.   All sorts of lawsuits and class actions popped up because the ads made Siri look fast and foolproof.

 

You really need to stop.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #88 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Sorry to burst your bubble, but none of this stops Android's momentum and inevitable eclipsing of Apple on both smartphones (already) and tablets (within 2 years max).

Yeah, Apple has already held out with the iPhone more than five years longer than anyone could have predicted. Just ask John Dvorak:

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2007-03-28/news/30774497_1_apple-handset-business-market

 

Joking aside, I'd be interested to hear why anyone thinks Android is going to trounce iOS in phones, and especially in tablets, but maybe that's a bit off topic. The only real argument I can think of is that there are a few companies that are willing to lose money in this space with the hopes of making money indirectly through the widespread use of the devices (e.g. Google, and Amazon if you consider that in the Android category). I think there will always be a place for low-end low-margin devices, and Apple is never going to be fighting to get that business. Is the idea that we'll get to a point in the next couple of years where a low-end phone is "good enough" for almost everybody, or will Google and Samsung succeed in essentially beating Apple at their own game by creating better hardware, software and ecosystems?

post #89 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

The worst example of misleading advertising on a smartphone is Samsung's NFC transferring a video by kissing phones for about 2 seconds. That must be some absurdly impressive data bandwidth and transfer rates, Samsung.

They only have to touch for a couple of seconds for NFC to set up a faster communication path;   after that they can move away while the transfer takes place.  It can be pretty fast.

--

Still, there's usually some time compression in most ads these days.  Consumers should be smart enough to be aware of ad hype, but there's always a group that will complain.

For example, take the Apple Siri ads.   All sorts of lawsuits and class actions popped up because the ads made Siri look fast and foolproof.

--

That's why they're also supposed to have a notice explaining that the timeline was sped up (assuming it was).

However, sometimes even the notice isn't enough. In the UK, an Apple ad about downloading apps was pulled even though it had the small notice, "Steps removed and sequence shortened. Network speeds may vary."    The Apple disclaimer was seen as too broad, since the ad's intent was to show how quick and easy buying an app was... and with some steps removed, it wasn't true to life even if sped up.

Is that avatar photo you and gatorguy?
post #90 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrogusto View Post

... The only real argument I can think of is that there are a few companies that are willing to lose money in this space with the hopes of making money indirectly through the widespread use of the devices (e.g. Google, and Amazon if you consider that in the Android category). ...

 

He is including the Kindle Fire in "Android" but it isn't Android, and shouldn't be included. Android and Android forks need to be counted by ecosystem and who controls it, since that's the only meaningful metric. The Kindle Fire is of no benefit to Google and the Google Android ecosystem is of no benefit to Amazon. The only purpose served by lumping them all together is to create a misleading picture. 

post #91 of 123
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post
They only have to touch for a couple of seconds for NFC to set up a faster communication path;   after that they can move away while the transfer takes place.  It can be pretty fast.

 

Still, there's usually some time compression in most ads these days.  Consumers should be smart enough to be aware of ad hype, but there's always a group that will complain.

 

For example, take the Apple Siri ads.   All sorts of lawsuits and class actions popped up because the ads made Siri look fast and foolproof.

 

That's why they're also supposed to have a notice explaining that the timeline was sped up (assuming it was).

You don't really have to speed it up at all. The phone screen most likely starts blank. It's difficult to light something with a surface emission and glare. The audio from the actor is likely in real time, but you can take a completely separate Siri response and comp it in. In the case of advertised features, I'd suggest people test for themselves as no advertiser is going to show anything less than optimal performance in a commercial.

post #92 of 123
That is the worst professional portrait I've ever seen on the internet. What photographer thought that wrinkled old muslin or blown-out, uneven background light was acceptable? If this guy were on the board of the local Chamber of Commerce in Arkansas, I would say it made sense. But isn't this guy....like, important?
post #93 of 123
I'm going to have to use 2 serial posts to cover all the stuff that was said, given that I was, you know, out and about enjoying myself for New Year's rather than in front of a computer (well, until now ha ha).

Happy New Year! Play it hard!
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry View Post

I could careless about Samsung's cell phones. Ingot the 16 gig iPhone 5 last week and it is simply breath taking. I have seen the Galaxies and they are not impressive. Big screen yeah but after playing with one I just yawned.

Some people find the iPhone 4, 4S and 5, too small a screen with a boring OS that hasn't changed much. Yawn too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

That's not true. The GS3 uses NFC to initiate contact, but then uses WiFi Direct to do the actual transfer.
However, it's not all good news. Jelly Bean uses Bluetooth to transfer after using NFC to initiate. Faster than NFC but still very slow compared to WiFi.
Samsung's system is called S-Beam and it NOT compatible with Android Beam. Which is quite stupid if you think about it. A Galaxy Nexus can't enjoy fast transfer rates with a GS3 because they use different systems. More fragmentation.

Fragmentation is a challenge. At the same time there are a lot of features being offered by different manufacturers. A 100% cohesive ecosystem is not so critical. Given also that iPhone-to-iPhone the only thing that is unique is iMessage, iPhone-Android and Android-Android offers virtually everything else iPhone-iPhone offers. And there are other limitations to iOS, of course, like lack of global file system and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Apple stock going UP is a complete fluke. Combined with their failure to sell any products, fears over the fiscal cliff, their pathetic customer satisfaction, and the lack of profit made on their devices, it's impossible to say what could cause it to go up. Someone probably hit the wrong key.

LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrogusto View Post

Yeah, Apple has already held out with the iPhone more than five years longer than anyone could have predicted. Just ask John Dvorak:
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2007-03-28/news/30774497_1_apple-handset-business-market

Joking aside, I'd be interested to hear why anyone thinks Android is going to trounce iOS in phones, and especially in tablets, but maybe that's a bit off topic. The only real argument I can think of is that there are a few companies that are willing to lose money in this space with the hopes of making money indirectly through the widespread use of the devices (e.g. Google, and Amazon if you consider that in the Android category). I think there will always be a place for low-end low-margin devices, and Apple is never going to be fighting to get that business. Is the idea that we'll get to a point in the next couple of years where a low-end phone is "good enough" for almost everybody, or will Google and Samsung succeed in essentially beating Apple at their own game by creating better hardware, software and ecosystems?

Again there is this misconception of "low-end low-margin" devices which is all Android is about. This is now incorrect. As mentioned low-end Android devices do inflate the figures somewhat but the high-end Android is really gaining steam. HTC One X, One X+, Droid DNA/Butterfly, Samsung S2, S3, Note2 ~ these arguably have a better experience and better feature set than iPhone 5 which can be seen as very polished but going into 2013, lagging behind high-end Android phones. Particularly with Android 4.1 and 4.2 rolled out across the high-end phones in 2013.

We will get to a point where iPhone 5 becomes a mid-end phone, while iPhone 4S becomes a low-end phone, "good enough" for almost everybody, while Google, Samsung, HTC succeed in creating better hardware, software and ecosystems. This is already happening, and unless Apple brings something really fresh to the table in 2013, it will continue to happen.

In terms of numbers, iOS is already eclipsed by Android in smartphones, there is no more debate on this point, specifically for global numbers. Western countries show a heavy tilt towards iPhone but the younger generation in Western countries are starting to explore Android more.

Will this affect Apple in any significant way? Probably not, but what I am trying to point out is the shift in momentum towards Android in smartphones has already started.

In terms of profits, well, Apple as always still excels in that. But as a user and proponent of intelligent use of mobile technology, I see good things in 2013 for Android.

As for the tablet space, see below.
Edited by sr2012 - 1/1/13 at 3:08am
post #94 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunabku View Post

The problem with your argument starts with the fact that by every other important metric (revenue, developer support, stickiness, internet usage) andriod is far behind iOS.  Apple is also taking control of their processor destiny and if the current trend tells us anything they'll continue to widen the gap between the competition.  Also Andriodians are betting on Apple standing still with innovation in ios and services.  Sorry to burst your bubble - Apple will innovate vigorously - it's in their DNA.  Finally look at how wonderfully Apple is established with its stores expanding around the globe - they are in so many markets and will continue to grow by opening into new ones.

Having the bottom position of the market - even if it is the majority - is not a position of power.  Hi-end means apple, so even if ios devices end up with the kind of market that apple laptops are in, it still will be good enough to lead the industry and garner the take-it-to-the-bank support of developers and loyal users.

Several incorrect assumptions above. Let me go through them.

Revenue: I do not see how this is really relevant to our argument as I am taking an end-user perspective here. Suffice to say Google and the manufacturers aren't going bankrupt in the foreseeable future due to market potential.

Developer Support: Android is gaining a lot of developer support for the things that we really want to do. All flagship apps know they have to be cross-platform, and they are. There are a lot of Android apps out there now, quantity and quality-wise they are increasing. Tablets is slightly different as I have mentioned but in terms of smartphones, 2013 is a hot time.

Stickiness: There are a lot of people who switch to Android or who have got Androids in the past few months, and I tell you, it is hard to go back to iOS.

Internet Usage: Android cannot be said to be far behind iOS. Web browsing, perhaps, but that's also because, as I've pointed out, due to the high level of Android apps and a high level of unoptimised websites Android data usage is app-oriented.

Processor "Destiny": Apple has one of the best if not the best chip in terms of the A6. However, the others are not sitting still. Yes, Apple can do a lot of specific and quality tweaks but Nvidia's Tegra 3, Qualcomm's Snapdragon and so on are also all ARM-based and there's a lot of exciting stuff going on there. Alongside with developers really investing a lot of time optimising Android like Project Butter, kernels and so on which will filter to the end-user. So chip-wise I am not really sure if there are any superb advantages for Apple by the end of 2013. For example, a Tegra 3 Nexus 7 running at 1.3ghz can play Shadowgun: Deadzone at High quality (similar to iPhone 5) at a higher 720p resolution. Tegra 3 HTC's, when they get Android 4.2, will also give iPhone 5 a good run for their money. Nexus 10 has some issues so it can't go up against iPad 3/4 hardcore yet, but in smartphones, processors by Apple are very refined but not incredibly unreachable by competitors in real-world use. Remember that competitors will be more aggressive with clock speeds and cores, so while this impacts battery life, some users will appreciate more power. Some battery life effects can be negated eg. with Juice Defender where you can get basically 0.5% battery drop per 1 hour in standby mode. And battery life is improving across the board.

Innovation: And so this is the saddest thing, for me. If you look at what's happened in 2012, with some amazing screens like the One X, S3, Note 2, DNA/Butterfly, beautiful 720p and 1080p resolution, high level of improvements and sophistication with Android 4.0, 4.1 and 4.2, in the 4" to 7" space I would argue that Android has innovated harder, faster and better than Apple. For the iPhone 5, what did we get? Slight increase in vertical display. Same OS, more or less. Same Siri which works or not for you. Maps gone backwards. Amazing form factor but in terms of size more of a "compact phone" rather than a flagship smartphone. There are also numerous Android developments which are not in iOS 2012, which I can go into at a later stage. So in terms of "Innovation" at the core of Apple's "DNA", without Steve Jobs, I would say they might indeed be outpaced by Android over the next few years.

Global Growth, High-End-Market: Everything you mention about Apple must by definition apply to Android as well. The smartphone global market is phenomenal. Apple and Android obviously target this market. There are high-end Apple phones, and there are some significant high-end Android phones as well. Droid DNA and Note 2 are incredibly high-end. There is no longer a credible argument that Android is just about cheap, crappy phones.

Android is not at the "bottom of the market". Apple is not "at the top of the market". These do not apply in 2013 due to all the points I have laid out in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

When the history is written, it will be Google's fall from it's moral high-chair into the depths of corporate thievery that will be the real culprit in terms of nudging out any legally and morally superior, mobile OS alternatives. 

I'm curious as to why Apple didn't sue Google directly and appeared to have cut off their nose to spite their face by releasing iOS Maps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

At the rate upon which tablets are expanding and Apple is actually growing its share, this 24 month claim is a pipe dream.

Incorrect, Apple's tablet share has diminished. Yet again forumers here unable to accept facts.



Even if you consider IDC's numbers to be too favourable of Android, here's another that no doubt shows iPad in the lead but certainly not ~gaining~ by any stretch of the imagination. As such, in 24 months, all Android has to do is hold steady and we will see similar numbers. But if Android gains more momentum and Apple continues to hold its course, that's where my prediction of 50-50 by the end of 2013 and Android eclipsing iOS in tablets by the end of 2014.



Note also that Tim Cook's numbers of 91% tablet web traffic share, to me, is invalid, because of not siting any sources and no one has been able to find that figure. Duplicitous at best. For more see: http://www.businessinsider.com/idc-apple-only-has-50-of-the-tablet-market-now-2012-11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

There is no indication Android has eclipsed iOS in cell phones and Android has, at best, 15% market share on tablets. Now I admit here are 100's of millions Android phones that are used as feature phones with 3.5" low test screens and there might be lots of Android tablets sitting on shelves collecting dust, but they do nothing to strengthen the Eco-system and are easily discounted.

Incorrect, and I do not understand why people on this forum refuse to accept facts. At some stage you will have to look at the numbers and accept them. That is all I ask. And please don't cop out by saying "Oh, that's forecast"... The non-forecast figures are there, with plenty of other charts I am not going to waste my time producing when it is all on the Interwebz for all to see.

When I say "refuse to accept facts", please don't take it as an insult. You just can't have it both ways. If you admit on one hand that there's a lot of "cheap, crappy phones" out there, "collecting dust" or not, then that means the Android figures are valid.

Then it is a question of numbers where it matters, that is, mid-to-high-end Android smartphones and tablets. But to do so one must concede the dominance of Android across the board in terms of smartphones.




Edited by sr2012 - 1/1/13 at 3:33am
post #95 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

When I say "refuse to accept facts", please don't take it as an insult. You just can't have it both ways. If you admit on one hand that there's a lot of "cheap, crappy phones" out there, "collecting dust" or not, then that means the Android figures are valid.
Then it is a question of numbers where it matters, that is, mid-to-high-end Android smartphones and tablets. But to do so one must concede the dominance of Android across the board in terms of smartphones.



Funny, but the one who is refusing to accept facts appears to be you.

First, there are no actual sales figures for Android phones. All we have are endless guesses - mostly from people who have been consistently wrong on the few things that can be verified.

Second. there's the matter of what constitutes a 'smart phone'. Many of the phones which are counted as smartphones are barely above feature phones - and Apple doesn't compete in that segment. It's as if you're comparing all passenger cars to Corvette sales. Yes, the Corvette is a passenger car, so technically the comparison is valid. In reality, though, it's totally irrelevant.

Finally, even the Android phones which really do have reasonable smartphone capabilities do not appear to be used as such very often. Look at all the independent figures on developer sales and web access. iOS handily wins almost every comparison that actually involves the use of the phones.

If you're happy with your copycat Android phone, good for you. No one's trying to take it away from you. Apple is simply asking that competitors develop their own technologies rather than stealing Apple's technologies.
"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 #96 of 123
1: IDC forecasting record is probably worse than digitimes. Just look at their mobile predictions for the last dozen qtrs

2: forecasting based on q3 2012 is idiotic given iPad sales tanked due to iPad mini rumors. This can easily be seen using q2 2012 numbers:

screen-shot-2012-08-02-at-7-44-16-am.png

Golly gosh batman...68% share. Want to bet q4 looks more like q2 than q3?

Also look at the shipment numbers. They went from 17M in q2 to 14M in q3.

Any analyst using q3 numbers for long term forecasting or market share analysis is simply lying with statistics.

3: There are no reliable numbers for Kindle shipments. Or Samsung for that matter. That makes shipment market share calculations as difficult as figuring out the market share split between Apple TV and google TV.

4: apple has never dominated smartphones except 1 qtr when Samsung hadn't quite taken over from Nokia. The whole iPhone is losing dominance to Android meme is simply weird. Yes, android has more share but all of that share was taken from Symbian, RIM and MS and not iOS.

Edit: talking worldwide share here. The US market is a tad different due to subsidies. Even here though, the fact the it was big news that the iPhone got above 50% share for the first time ever last qtr shows that the iPhone has never dominated even in its home market.
Edited by nht - 1/1/13 at 7:14am
post #97 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by macwise View Post

That is the worst professional portrait I've ever seen on the internet. What photographer thought that wrinkled old muslin or blown-out, uneven background light was acceptable? If this guy were on the board of the local Chamber of Commerce in Arkansas, I would say it made sense. But isn't this guy....like, important?

I've seen worse - like ANY picture of Ballmer you see on the Internet.
"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 #98 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottleworks View Post

I'm lost... I thought some of the inflecting Patents got declared null and void? Where does that stand in relation to this and the California Apple v Samsung case?

 

Two (IIRC) of the patents are pending review and will likely be struck down once reviewed, and as such they are marked as Preliminarily Invalidated. As such this ITC ruling will get nowhere - the ruling can't be applied because the basis upon which is stands has changed.

 

Thus the story generates some headlines, and allows Apple fanboys to write things like "Samscum" etc, but it's meaningless.

 

In reality I doubt one person has ever bought a Samsung phone thinking it was an Apple phone, and that's why all these design patents and software patents are bullshit.

post #99 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

Two (IIRC) of the patents are pending review and will likely be struck down once reviewed, and as such they are marked as Preliminarily Invalidated. As such this ITC ruling will get nowhere - the ruling can't be applied because the basis upon which is stands has changed.

I guess you missed the 5,000 times this was explained in the earlier thread. "preliminarily invalidated" is the standard term for "we've been asked to review this and have just started our review process". It doesn't indicate anything about how likely the patents are to be invalidated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

Thus the story generates some headlines, and allows Apple fanboys to write things like "Samscum" etc, but it's meaningless.

In reality I doubt one person has ever bought a Samsung phone thinking it was an Apple phone, and that's why all these design patents and software patents are bullshit.

I guess you also missed Samsung's testimony in the trial - where they indicated that a significant percentage of their customers bought and returned Tabs thinking that they were buying iPads.
"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 #100 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I guess you missed the 5,000 times this was explained in the earlier thread. "preliminarily invalidated" is the standard term for "we've been asked to review this and have just started our review process". It doesn't indicate anything about how likely the patents are to be invalidated.
I guess you also missed Samsung's testimony in the trial - where they indicated that a significant percentage of their customers bought and returned Tabs thinking that they were buying iPads.

I thought that was an Apple submission using internal Best Buy memos from a very few specific store reports? I don't know that  was Samsung's testimony, tho it's possible you're correct.

 

BTW, at least 75% of the time a USPTO patent review results in the patents claims being trimmed back or invalidated altogether, vastly more likely than the patent being validated as is. That's according to USPTO statistics. So yes it really does indicate the likelihood of re-examined patents being invalidated in whole or part as pretty high.


Edited by Gatorguy - 1/2/13 at 7:00am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #101 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I guess you missed the 5,000 times this was explained in the earlier thread. "preliminarily invalidated" is the standard term for "we've been asked to review this and have just started our review process". It doesn't indicate anything about how likely the patents are to be invalidated.

 

13% of ex-parte reexaminations result in the patent being ruled invalid.  47% of inter-partes examinations result in the patent being ruled invalid.  Of the ones that survive 40% have claim adjustments.

 

http://kppb.com/kppb/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79&catid=3&Itemid=29

 

Interestingly this is an ex-parte examination and not inter-partes as I would have expected.  So the odds are higher that the patents will survive in some form...and might end up getting strengthened.

 

Even if the final office action is to invalidate the statistics suggest that around a third of those decisions get reversed on appeal.

 

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/09/ex-parte-patent-appeal-results.html

 

But these are statistical outcomes and the quality of the patent matter more than what has happened in the past...although the statistics does provide a feel for the politics within the USPTO and the guidance to the examiners.

 

For a little while I was thinking about pursuing a law degree concentrating on IP but that moment of silliness passed.  Just a not a good fit even if I find the topic interesting.

post #102 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Interestingly this is an ex-parte examination and not inter-partes as I would have expected.  So the odds are higher that the patents will survive in some form...and might end up getting strengthened.

If by strengthened you mean the claims being narrowed and thus easier to defend, then you could be correct. If instead you mean the claims could be expanded or broadened, then no. US law allows for only three outcomes as far as I know, and expanding or adding to an existing patent's claims is not one of them.


Edited by Gatorguy - 1/2/13 at 7:39am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #103 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

He is including the Kindle Fire in "Android" but it isn't Android, and shouldn't be included. Android and Android forks need to be counted by ecosystem and who controls it, since that's the only meaningful metric. The Kindle Fire is of no benefit to Google and the Google Android ecosystem is of no benefit to Amazon. The only purpose served by lumping them all together is to create a misleading picture. 

 

This isn't true given you can sideload on the Kindle.  Plus most android devices can buy from the Amazon app store although there's a minor amount of hoop jumping to get the appstore app loaded (need to download the apk and sideload...pretty minor).  Worthwhile for some of the Amazon app deals.

 

I recall that Amazon paid for some Kindle exclusives for launch but I don't think they've done a lot of that since then.

 

It is true that the Kindle Fire is less benefit to Google than a Nexus but it's obvious that the Kindle Fire derives a huge benefit from Android since all their apps are just regular Android apps in their own store.  If they weren't then their app library would be on par with the Playbook.

 

From an app developer perspective they are part of the same ecosystem although IMHO it's a lot easier to simply target the Kindle Fire and Kindle Fire HD and let the chips lie where they may for the other tablets.  Even then it would look better than most of the apps on Android tablets:

 

"So to test Google's contention that the vast majority of phone apps work well on tablets, I downloaded 63 of our 100 Best Android Apps onto the Nexus 10. (Of the rest, some didn't show up in the Nexus's market, a bunch required me to set up new accounts on various services, and one crashed.) Of the 63, only 15 had user interfaces that appeared to be designed for the tablet form factor. Another 21 worked okay but didn't make optimal use of the space—for instance, Pandora and Slacker Radio, which aren't really interface-focused anyway. So at best, 36 of my 63 test apps looked adequate."

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2411971,00.asp

post #104 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If by strengthened you mean the claims being narrowed and thus easier to defend, then you could be correct. If instead you mean the claims could be expanded or broadened, then no. US law allows for only three outcomes as far as I know, and expanding or adding to an existing patent's claims is not one of them.

 

Quote from the link you failed to click:

When can reexamination strengthen a patent?

 

Requesting reexamination provides the patent owner with an opportunity to strengthen the patent. The main way a patent can be strengthened during reexamination is that the patent owner can add additional claims, often targeting the accused product and drafted in light of the known prior art. The patent owner can also submit additional prior art.

 

Given that the patent is likely to emerge from reexamination, the patent that emerges will enjoy a presumption of validity over all the cited art and may include claims that are significantly harder to invalidate during litigation. Furthermore, the patent that emerges from reexamination may be perceived as having “survived” a validity challenge and a court or jury may be reluctant to invalidate the patent during subsequent litigation.

 

The best way to manage the risk that a patent will be strengthened through the reexamination process is to redesign the accused product during the pendency of the reexamination so that the redesigned product clearly does not infringe the patent.

 

When is a reexamination a bad idea?


Another danger of launching a reexamination is that the patent owner is provided with an opportunity to correct a flawed patent. Careful consideration should be given with respect to the filing of a reexamination where the patent in question is a business method patent or may have been procured through inequitable conduct.

 

The patent owner could use the reexamination as an opportunity to respond to the recent In re Bilski decision by adding limitations that increase the likelihood that the claims will be found to relate to statutory subject matter. Where the patent may have been procured through inequitable conduct related to a patent owner’s failure to cite relevant prior art, a reexamination may present an opening for the patent owner to cite the prior art minimizing the importance of its failure to do so in the past.

 

Overall, reexaminations can be an effective tool for managing liability for patent infringement. However, care should be taken to ensure that initiating a reexamination does not increase the likelihood that the patent owner will prevail during litigation.

 

Clicking on provided links before writing stupid things is often a good idea.  If you'd like to refute David Bailey on this point, feel free but this is going to be a hard one to do:

 

USPTO 37 CFR 1.530:  link

(j) Amendments in reexamination proceedings. Any proposed amendment to the description and claims in patents involved in reexamination proceedings must be made in accordance with § 1.530.

 

37 CFR 1.530 Statement by patent owner in ex parte reexamination; amendment by patent owner in ex parte or inter partes reexamination; inventorship change in ex parte or inter partes reexamination.

...

An amendment paper must include the entire text of each patent claim which is being proposed to be changed by such amendment paper and of each new claim being proposed to be added by such amendment paper.

...

Each patent claim proposed to be changed and each proposed added claim must include markings pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section, except that a patent claim or proposed added claim should be canceled by a statement canceling the claim, without presentation of the text of the claim. 

...

  • (f) Changes shown by markings. Any changes relative to the patent being reexamined which are made to the specification, including the claims, must include the following markings:
    • (1) The matter to be omitted by the reexamination proceeding must be enclosed in brackets; and
    • (2) The matter to be added by the reexamination proceeding must be underlined.
  • (g) Numbering of patent claims preserved. Patent claims may not be renumbered. The numbering of any claims added in the reexamination proceeding must follow the number of the highest numbered patent claim.

 

Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

post #105 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

 

Clicking on provided links before writing stupid things is often a good idea.  If you'd like to refute David Bailey on this point, feel free but this is going to be a hard one to do:

 

 

Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

I'm still playing.

 

You forgot to take a look at this section that specifically applies to ex parte reexams, which this one is. 

 

 

37 C.F.R. 1.552   Scope of reexamination in ex parte reexamination proceedings.

  • (a) Claims in an ex parte reexamination proceeding will be examined on the basis of patents or printed publications and, with respect to subject matter added or deleted in the reexamination proceeding, on the basis of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112.
  • (b) Claims in an ex parte reexamination proceeding will not be permitted to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.
  • (c) Issues other than those indicated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section will not be resolved in a reexamination proceeding. If such issues are raised by the patent owner or third party requester during a reexamination proceeding, the existence of such issues will be noted by the examiner in the next Office action, in which case the patent owner may consider the advisability of filing a reissue application to have such issues considered and resolved.
  • The reexamination proceeding provides a complete reexamination of the patent claims on the basis of prior art patents and printed publications. Issues relating to 35 U.S.C. 112 are addressed only with respect to new claims or amendatory subject matter in the specification, claims or drawings. Any new or amended claims are examined to ensure that the scope of the original patent claims is not enlarged, i.e., broadened. See 35 U.S.C. 305.

In essence it's exactly as I said originally as far as I can tell. The patent's claims cannot be expanded or broadened. If you want to continue to say I'm incorrect feel free to respond again with new info.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2258.html

 

Before claiming other forum members are "writing stupid things" you should be 100% certain that they are.

 

Now with that out of the way, at least temporarily, thanks for the link you offered earlier. It did include details I hadn't read before. Taking the time to find sources as you did is always appreciated.


Edited by Gatorguy - 1/2/13 at 9:25am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #106 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm still playing.

 

You forgot to take a look at this section that specifically applies to ex-parte reexams, which this one is. 

 

 

37 C.F.R. 1.552   Scope of reexamination in ex parte reexamination proceedings.

  • (a) Claims in an ex parte reexamination proceeding will be examined on the basis of patents or printed publications and, with respect to subject matter added or deleted in the reexamination proceeding, on the basis of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112.
  • (b) Claims in an ex parte reexamination proceeding will not be permitted to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.
  • (c) Issues other than those indicated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section will not be resolved in a reexamination proceeding. If such issues are raised by the patent owner or third party requester during a reexamination proceeding, the existence of such issues will be noted by the examiner in the next Office action, in which case the patent owner may consider the advisability of filing a reissue application to have such issues considered and resolved.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2258.html

 

Before claiming other forum members are "writing stupid things" you should be 100% certain that they are.

 

Now with that out of the way, at least temporarily, thanks for the link you offered earlier. It did include details I hadn't read before. Taking the time to find sources as you did is always appreciated.

 

The implication was clear that you believed that there was no way to strengthen patents except by making them more defensible.  Given that you can add claims to target products already infringing this is untrue.  You can indeed offensively strengthen claims during re-examination and it is a risk to request reexamination.  Not to mention that simply surviving reexaminations strengthens a patent in itself.

 

Yes, you can't expand the patent to cover something not originally covered.  I kinda expected that to be assumed (ignoring the malleability of the first 2 years), so yes, your literal statement that the patent can't be broadened is (sorta *) true.  The rest is false given claims can be added that negatively impact the party initiating the reexamination.

 

It's a little weird to me that this is ex-parte as I don't see any advantages for Samsung other than a potential stay in judgement...which didn't happen and I don't see how the estoppal disadvantage of intra-partes applies at this somewhat late date but I'm not a lawyer and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn anytime recently.  Heck, maybe it wasn't even Samsung.

 

---

 

* Note that the litmus test in MPEP 1412.03 is:  "A claim would be considered a broadening claim if the patent owner would be able to sue any party for infringement who previously could not have been sued for infringement."  Not overly useful in the context of Samsung.  The claim must also be broader in scope to every other claim in the patent...which leads to some outcomes that are counter intuitive to the layperson whether a patent has actually been narrowed or broadened.  Not to mention that the examiner can simply screw up.

post #107 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Yes, you can't expand the patent to cover something not originally covered.  I kinda expected that to be assumed (ignoring the malleability of the first 2 years), so yes, your literal statement that the patent can't be broadened is <absolutely> true (corrected for you).  The rest is false given claims can be added that negatively impact the party initiating the reexamination.

"The rest is false"?

 

What specifically are you still trying to claim is false in what I wrote? I don't believe you can add another claim during an ex parte reexam. That requires a patent reissue application doesn't it? If that's correct (and I'm not 100% certain it is) how would your bolded statement apply to an ex parte reexamination?


Edited by Gatorguy - 1/2/13 at 9:59am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #108 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


And everything wrong with the Android demi-monde. This is what sr2012 leaves out of his epic confessional above. Crossing over to the Dark Side means selling youself to an advertising machine, thus loss of integrity, or evidence that you never had integrity. ("I don't mind if Google mines my data, look what I'm getting for free!")
Not to mention getting intimate with forms of plastic and ungodly extrusions that no one of taste would ever associate with. I mean, HTC makes as nice a phone as any Android maker, but what is that awful excrescence that surrounds the camera lens?

 

There's also the matter of Samsung's tone deaf notion of demographics, which we've seen before.  That office ad feature a no-nonsense, get work done dude vs. a bubble headed "let's play games" gal who proves to be a scheming bitch, but who then gets her comeuppance when the dudes go off to their boys only treehouse while ordering the girl to stay behind and do the scut work. 

 

Think the average woman working in an office is going to be impressed by this scenario?  It puts me in mind of the general vibe around most Android advertising, which seems to be directed at precisely the same demographic as Red Bull, Axe and shitty vodka ads--- young male urban or wannabe urban douche-bags.   The guy in this ad is just the "grown-up" version of same, and he and his boss/buddy will no doubt have a totally righteous bro-down once the dumb skirt is safely out of sight.

 

There's something about Samsung that exudes a kind of ugliness that they don't seem to even be concerned about keeping under wraps.  It seems to arise from their overinflated sense of their importance, a kind of preening, entirely unearned arrogance that translates into bullying, off-putting marketing.  Someone should remind them that they make commodity phones with someone else's OS, and that their "innovations" are limited to big screens, a bigger advertising budget, and aggressive pricing.  Which is fine and all, and they've certainly done a great job of capturing market share, but copying Apple's designs and using Google's software are not the stuff of long term market leaders.  They have the kind of success that could disappear overnight, because outside of name recognition and being the Android badge of the moment, what are they really offering that anyone else couldn't?

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #109 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

"The rest is false"?

 

What specifically are you still trying to claim is false in what I wrote? I don't believe you can add another claim during an ex parte reexam. That requires a patent reissue application doesn't it? If that's correct (and I'm not 100% certain it is) how would your bolded statement apply to an ex parte reexamination?

 

Wait, what?  Didn't we just go through this with me pointing out that you can add claims and you responding that the new claims cannot broaden the scope of the patent?

 

As for what "the rest" means it would be the other two sentences in your three sentence post:

 

"If by strengthened you mean the claims being narrowed and thus easier to defend, then you could be correct."

 

Nope, I didn't mean that, I meant what Bailey wrote, I linked and then quoted for you again.  There are multiple ways a patent can be strengthened on a re-exam he goes over.  

 

And the last sentence it's the "adding claims" part we disagree on.

post #110 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Wait, what?  Didn't we just go through this with me pointing out that you can add claims and you responding that the new claims cannot broaden the scope of the patent?

 

As for what "the rest" means it would be the other two sentences in your three sentence post:

 

"If by strengthened you mean the claims being narrowed and thus easier to defend, then you could be correct."

 

Nope, I didn't mean that, I meant what Bailey wrote, I linked and then quoted for you again.  There are multiple ways a patent can be strengthened on a re-exam he goes over.  

 

And the last sentence it's the "adding claims" part we disagree on.

I know you've said you can add claims in an ex parte reexam. I disagreed, opining that the claims can only be approved as originally written or narrowed, either of which could strengthen IP claims in litigation. There cannot be new claims added in an ex parte re-exam as far as I can see going by the patent subsection I linked for you. 

 

I suspect you've realized I was correct in the first place but doing your best to avoid admitting as much. If I'm reading you wrong then perhaps you could use an actual example of an ex parte re-exam where the patent claims weren't either narrowed or approved in the original form and still strengthened the patent. So far you seem to be arguing in circles, agreeing with me yet not agreeing. If you have an example that shows where I've not taken something into account I'll happily admit as much. I'm more than willing to learn.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #111 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

 

There's also the matter of Samsung's tone deaf notion of demographics, which we've seen before.  That office ad feature a no-nonsense, get work done dude vs. a bubble headed "let's play games" gal who proves to be a scheming bitch, but who then gets her comeuppance when the dudes go off to their boys only treehouse while ordering the girl to stay behind and do the scut work. 

 

Think the average woman working in an office is going to be impressed by this scenario?  It puts me in mind of the general vibe around most Android advertising, which seems to be directed at precisely the same demographic as Red Bull, Axe and shitty vodka ads--- young male urban or wannabe urban douche-bags.   The guy in this ad is just the "grown-up" version of same, and he and his boss/buddy will no doubt have a totally righteous bro-down once the dumb skirt is safely out of sight.

 

There's something about Samsung that exudes a kind of ugliness that they don't seem to even be concerned about keeping under wraps.  It seems to arise from their overinflated sense of their importance, a kind of preening, entirely unearned arrogance that translates into bullying, off-putting marketing.  Someone should remind them that they make commodity phones with someone else's OS, and that their "innovations" are limited to big screens, a bigger advertising budget, and aggressive pricing.  Which is fine and all, and they've certainly done a great job of capturing market share, but copying Apple's designs and using Google's software are not the stuff of long term market leaders.  They have the kind of success that could disappear overnight, because outside of name recognition and being the Android badge of the moment, what are they really offering that anyone else couldn't?

 

 

I think you're right about the demographic and it all seems to be playing to the kind of free-software, free-everything geeks that loiter on Android  forums. Samsung has really become the douchebag brand par excellence: and they know there is a large audience that is in tune with them. I don't think they care about women as a target audience. They send trolls like Nathillien onto this forum because they really believe that the war will be won by winning over the geeks of the world to their anti-Apple dark side. It's a hearts-and-minds war.

 

Edit: I see from looking back through the posts that I'm only saying the same thing here that Flaneur and others have said.


Edited by Eluard - 1/2/13 at 2:00pm
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
post #112 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


Interestimg post. Just an offhand suggestion:
Marshall McLuhan would probably ascribe it to the use of ideographic writing, where the clarity of communication depends on the precision of copying complex characters with many times the pictorial detail of Western analytical alphabets. Fosters an imitative habit of mind, as well as a heightened awareness of aesthetic detail. But not adventurousness, necessarily.
I'm sure the Asians among us here are going to just love this casual generalizing. Apologies in advance!
Edit: And the Korean alphabet and its history would have to be squeezed into this theory somehow. It could be done, but do these kinds of "explanations" ever describe any culture fairly? How do Westerners feel when McLuhan says that intellectual property is such a Western obsession because the alphabet and the printed book have created an ethic of individual thought?

 

Possibly, or possibly it has something to do with the very strict Feudalism that has characterised the region for well over a thousand years. 

 

On the general issue of how serious a problem plagiarism is in Asia I wanted to link to an article in the Chinese press. The highly distinguished mathematician S.-T. Yau, discoverer of the Calabi-Yau manifolds in string theory, complained that a Chinese doctoral student in the U.S. had plagiarised his PhD thesis, but that on returning to China this person had been put in a leading position in the Academy of Sciences and was in control of a great deal of funding. (I am having to note this from memory because the newspaper is no longer showing the article on-line.) When this became a scandal in 2006 even the Chinese government noted that steps had to be taken to curb plagiarism in the country's Universities.

 

My original point was not that plagiarism is rife, but that it is so entrenched that it is taken as a mark of excellence to copy and incrementally improve. Many South Koreans will see Samsung as having bested Apple by copying them. Not all, but many. Stealing is not only not seen as a crime, it is seen as a good, smart move.

AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
post #113 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I suspect you've realized I was correct in the first place but doing your best to avoid admitting as much. 

 

Heck no.  If you're right you're right.  Facts are facts.  Yogi Berra was a baseball player.  I don't (usually) have a problem admitting I screwed up.

 

/shrug  

 

I said you made a stupid comment because you wrote something directly opposite of what an IP lawyer wrote.  The burden of proof is on you to show different...and thus far you seem to be avoiding addressing his points at all and concentrating on mine.  I'm not a lawyer, I'm a dev.  Any knowledge I have regarding IP is by osmosis/reading legal blogs so refuting any of my comments regarding the meaning of legalese has very little value.

 

Which also means that I'm not going to be able to find that example for you.  Especially since you worded the challenge so weirdly.

 

"an actual example of an ex parte re-exam where the patent claims weren't either narrowed or approved in the original form and still strengthened the patent."

 

Given that the regulations indicate that new claims must be numbered in a certain way in the section discussing ex-parte reexams I have no idea what would qualify as proof to you that new claims can be added and patents can be strengthened as a result.  Here's another discussion:

 

Quote:

Ex parte reexamination drawbacks for a third party Requester include:

...

4. A third party requester cannot prevent a patent owner from amending existing claims and/or adding claims of the same scope or narrower scope to make them stronger and still be infringed by the third party requester.

 

http://www.bskb.com/news_and_events/lectures_and_articles/ETP_Post_Grant_Article_Ex_Parte_Reexam.html

 

Again, another analysis by another lawyer that specifically state that claims can be added to make a patent stronger against an infringing requestor as part of a discussion regarding the drawbacks of requesting reexamination.

 

I'm sure there are case-law examples in actual IP law books of where some infringer totally screwed the pooch by requesting a re-exam but I ain't got any such books and therefore ain't got any specific examples.  

 

Nor am I inclined to go looking for further evidence when you don't actually believe what actual IP lawyers write about a subject.


Edited by nht - 1/2/13 at 6:21pm
post #114 of 123
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


There cannot be new claims added in an ex parte re-exam as far as I can see going by the patent subsection I linked for you. 

 

I didn't address this so I'll do it here:  

 

No, the section you quoted stated that patents can not be broadened either by amending existing ones or adding new ones.  

 

Not that new claims cannot be added as long as the the scope remains the same or is narrowed.

 

My laypersons understanding is that if claim 1 goes from 10-50 (using numbers as an easy to understand proxy) and claim 2 goes from 40-90 then no new claims can go beyond the bounds of 10-90 but a new claim 3 that ranges between 20-80 is permissible since the scope remains the same.  Because I could already sue you for anything from 20 to 50 because of Claim 1 and from 40 to 80 because of Claim 2 then Claim 3 didn't expand the scope of the patent one iota but clarified it.  But since your product specifically does 20-80 you just got screwed by the re-exam as to be obviously infringing rather than needing to walk a jury through half of Claim 1 and half of Claim 2 and needing to connect the dots.

 

A new claim 4 that went from 80-100 wouldn't be allowed since now I could sue you because your product does 95 when I could not before.  That would be broadening the patent and not allowed.

 

Which is why I cited MPEP 1412.03.  It defines what the USPTO means by broadening.

post #115 of 123
Wow. You guys are reading way too much into something as simple as a phone. Surely Android is not the cause of downfall of human civilisation? Jeez.. "inimate with forms of plastic" ... "office woman stories" ~ I'd hate to read into that stuff like you've read into my use of a smartphone and tablet.

If only we could put this energy to better use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur 

And everything wrong with the Android demi-monde. This is what sr2012 leaves out of his epic confessional above. Crossing over to the Dark Side means selling youself to an advertising machine, thus loss of integrity, or evidence that you never had integrity. ("I don't mind if Google mines my data, look what I'm getting for free!")

Not to mention getting intimate with forms of plastic and ungodly extrusions that no one of taste would ever associate with. I mean, HTC makes as nice a phone as any Android maker, but what is that awful excrescence that surrounds the camera lens?

There's also the matter of Samsung's tone deaf notion of demographics, which we've seen before. That office ad feature a no-nonsense, get work done dude vs. a bubble headed "let's play games" gal who proves to be a scheming bitch, but who then gets her comeuppance when the dudes go off to their boys only treehouse while ordering the girl to stay behind and do the scut work.

Think the average woman working in an office is going to be impressed by this scenario? It puts me in mind of the general vibe around most Android advertising, which seems to be directed at precisely the same demographic as Red Bull, Axe and shitty vodka ads--- young male urban or wannabe urban douche-bags. The guy in this ad is just the "grown-up" version of same, and he and his boss/buddy will no doubt have a totally righteous bro-down once the dumb skirt is safely out of sight.

There's something about Samsung that exudes a kind of ugliness that they don't seem to even be concerned about keeping under wraps. It seems to arise from their overinflated sense of their importance, a kind of preening, entirely unearned arrogance that translates into bullying, off-putting marketing. Someone should remind them that they make commodity phones with someone else's OS, and that their "innovations" are limited to big screens, a bigger advertising budget, and aggressive pricing. Which is fine and all, and they've certainly done a great job of capturing market share, but copying Apple's designs and using Google's software are not the stuff of long term market leaders. They have the kind of success that could disappear overnight, because outside of name recognition and being the Android badge of the moment, what are they really offering that anyone else couldn't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

There's also the matter of Samsung's tone deaf notion of demographics, which we've seen before.  That office ad feature a no-nonsense, get work done dude vs. a bubble headed "let's play games" gal who proves to be a scheming bitch, but who then gets her comeuppance when the dudes go off to their boys only treehouse while ordering the girl to stay behind and do the scut work. 

Think the average woman working in an office is going to be impressed by this scenario?  It puts me in mind of the general vibe around most Android advertising, which seems to be directed at precisely the same demographic as Red Bull, Axe and shitty vodka ads--- young male urban or wannabe urban douche-bags.   The guy in this ad is just the "grown-up" version of same, and he and his boss/buddy will no doubt have a totally righteous bro-down once the dumb skirt is safely out of sight.

There's something about Samsung that exudes a kind of ugliness that they don't seem to even be concerned about keeping under wraps.  It seems to arise from their overinflated sense of their importance, a kind of preening, entirely unearned arrogance that translates into bullying, off-putting marketing.  Someone should remind them that they make commodity phones with someone else's OS, and that their "innovations" are limited to big screens, a bigger advertising budget, and aggressive pricing.  Which is fine and all, and they've certainly done a great job of capturing market share, but copying Apple's designs and using Google's software are not the stuff of long term market leaders.  They have the kind of success that could disappear overnight, because outside of name recognition and being the Android badge of the moment, what are they really offering that anyone else couldn't?
post #116 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Wow. You guys are reading way too much into something as simple as a phone. Surely Android is not the cause of downfall of human civilisation? Jeez.. "inimate with forms of plastic" ... "office woman stories" ~ I'd hate to read into that stuff like you've read into my use of a smartphone and tablet.
If only we could put this energy to better use.

 

Says the guy given to posting extravagant, endless Android apologia at an Apple site, complete with charts and graphs.  For you to talk about better use of anyone's energy is pretty funny.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #117 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Says the guy given to posting extravagant, endless Android apologia at an Apple site, complete with charts and graphs.  For you to talk about better use of anyone's energy is pretty funny.

Energy is one thing, that is my own to decide how to spend. Suffice to say I'm spending much less of it on AppleInsider.

As for "extravagant, endless" Android apologia? I don't think my Android posts hold a candle to the hardcore apologists (if you want to use that term) and moral judgementalists on this forum.
post #118 of 123

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post


But for people living in the ~Real World~ ... 2013 will see some very interesting Android developments. iPhone and iPad won't go anywhere, they'll still be world class. But the lustre may come off a little as it is now. That's all I'm saying.
Just six months ago I was Android-bashing heavily on these here forums. Then the MBP 15" Retina came out. I tried it, returned it. The iPad 3 came out before that, I got it, and it's nice, but I was taken aback by it getting bigger and heavier than the iPad 2. Recently I got a MacBook Air 13", very very nice, but one niggle is the colour, deep reds do not exist. iPhone 5... got it, nice, but just doesn't have that je ne se quois (spelling?). Recently took some time to tinker with the Nexus 7 and Xperia S, suddenly with Android 4 it is quite viable. Got a HTC One X for myself for Christmas, Android 4.1... Very good experience if you put some effort into understanding and optimising your phone (Samsung S3 is solid right out of the box that's probably why it is No. 1 in Android smartphones).

 

 

I must say sr2012, your post was one of the best written ones I have seen on this forum in a long time. No hate ridden text, just observation. And I like that you are not above getting your information from different sources and also try out modern android devices.

 

I for one, am going for android in 2013 when it comes to a tablet. I am soon going to need one, and after looking at the competition, there is no way I will hand out my cash to Apple, for what I am offered.

 

If I'm also getting my next phone on the android sign is still up in the air. The iPhone5 was a huge blow to my apple fandom I must admit. Unlike others here, I can't just envelope myself in a uncontrolled tornado of rage and just ignore the reality by shoutung out hateful sentences all day long, until I make myself believe the stuff I'm blurting out. So with that option gone, I will have to take a close look at what the android phones are doing.

 

After the last update my friend at work got on his S3, I'm already nearly breaking down. He got great features, some just to play with (best face) and some really great ones (lowlight photography) that would headline any iPhone campagne.. and he got it for free, just like that. Its really hard to sit there and see that with my tiny phone next to his that does everything better and cost so much less.

 

I am still clinging to the hope, that Apple will once again, as they did a long long time ago, just blast into the market with new inventions that nobody has and that change the game totally. Not just stuff my friends have been showing me forever... just slapping a different name and apple logo over it.

 

 

Okay, I almost didn't dare to write all this cause of what will follow, but yeah, I herethereby yield the floor to the hatescreamers and ragetypers.

post #119 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by hwjunkie View Post

I must say sr2012, your post was one of the best written ones I have seen on this forum in a long time. No hate ridden text, just observation. And I like that you are not above getting your information from different sources and also try out modern android devices.

Thank you very much, I appreciate the support. I have outlined time and time again what devices I use, what I like and don't like about Apple, and observations of the trends. Yes I am passionate about things, but not in shouting down other people, as far as possible I try to highlight the benefits and facts of what I like.

Cheers and indeed, this year is going to be an interesting one.

PS I have also highlighted that what I am trying to communicate is the difference that Steve Jobs made, and continues to make, in his absence. Some of what I am saying is how much I truly admire a human being such as Steve that literally, changed the world forever ~ time and time again. I am just starting my own business, ie. formalising my freelance work into a company (just me at the moment), and when you step out from employee to your own company, the amount of rubbish out there in the business and non-business community is staggering. For Steve it must have seemed like climbing a sheer cliff face, almost everyday.

But he made it to the top. And decided to climb the next peak. And the next.

PPS If you like see my comments here on the new insights in my life in 2013... http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/152839/rules-of-the-troll-wip#post_2254047
Edited by sr2012 - 1/4/13 at 4:52am
post #120 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

I didn't address this so I'll do it here:  

 

No, the section you quoted stated that patents can not be broadened either by amending existing ones or adding new ones.  

 

Not that new claims cannot be added as long as the the scope remains the same or is narrowed.

 

My laypersons understanding is that if claim 1 goes from 10-50 (using numbers as an easy to understand proxy) and claim 2 goes from 40-90 then no new claims can go beyond the bounds of 10-90 but a new claim 3 that ranges between 20-80 is permissible since the scope remains the same.  Because I could already sue you for anything from 20 to 50 because of Claim 1 and from 40 to 80 because of Claim 2 then Claim 3 didn't expand the scope of the patent one iota but clarified it.  But since your product specifically does 20-80 you just got screwed by the re-exam as to be obviously infringing rather than needing to walk a jury through half of Claim 1 and half of Claim 2 and needing to connect the dots.

 

A new claim 4 that went from 80-100 wouldn't be allowed since now I could sue you because your product does 95 when I could not before.  That would be broadening the patent and not allowed.

 

Which is why I cited MPEP 1412.03.  It defines what the USPTO means by broadening.

That's a well-thought out reply. Thanks. Much better than the arrogant and mocking tone you took with your first reply to me. 

 

I actually agree with your reasoning. But I wouldn't personally consider a claim revision that clarifies or narrows the existing ones to be a "new claim". It's more a re-hashing of existing ones rather than something new, is it not? IMO, we're both saying the same thing, in essence agreeing, but using different definitions and thus arguments to do so. As far as I'm concerned my original statement can stand as is and be perfectly and completely true. I call it narrowing, you call it a new claim. You're simply using the same tree to find disagreement in what color the leaves are.


Edited by Gatorguy - 1/4/13 at 5:18am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ITC judge: Samsung should post massive bond ahead of US sales ban