or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung experts say Apple's patented features not valuable in trial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung experts say Apple's patented features not valuable in trial - Page 3

post #81 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


The most idiotic post yet. Three lies that clueless posters always repeat about lawsuits: 1) lawsuits hurt innovation, 2) lawsuits cause higher prices, 3) lawsuits give consumers fewer choices. And you posted 2 out of 3. I guess you can't be perfect.

Stalling innovation? Outright lie. Patent lawsuits in the tech world have been around forever. Has innovation stalled the last 30 years? Not one bit. Look at any part of computer tech (processors, memory, displays, storage, cameras....). We have seen considerable advances in technology at a steady pace that hasn't let up. Ever. So much for stalling innovation.

Kill the competition? Another lie. At the end of this trial (like the last one) Samsung will have to pay Apple some money. Samsung isn't going out of business over a lawsuit and neither is anyone else. Even HTC (a much weaker company than Samsung) survived a major Apple lawsuit (and temporary sales ban) without any difficulty.

Now.....let's reverse Apple and Samsung.

Is Samsung or Google stalling innovation? More than Apple, that's for sure. Samsung and Google both have two things in common: 1) they steal IP without permision and 2) they try to minimize the value of others IP. If they are allowed to get away with IP theft, then they are hurting innovation. If companies aren't allowed to protect their IP then they will no longer invest billions in R&D. Patent lawsuits keep thieves in line and let others know IP theft is not tolerated.

Then we have Samsung who are trying to minimize the value of Apples IP. Another direct attack on innovation, and related to theft. If the value can be lowered, then the penalty for theft is also lowered. Nothing like saying those billions of R&D dollars only generated millions in "real world" value. Again, what company is going to invest in R&D without the ability to recoup their investment?

Google is also trying to create a "de-facto standard" to apply to patents. What this means is if I invent something, and it becomes popular, then I lose control of my IP. It will become a "standard" even if I don't want to declare it as part of a standard. Suddenly everyone can use my IP and I have no say over who uses it. And since it's like an SEP I'll get a fraction of licensing fees I could have received had the patent remained under my control.

So much truth; a pleasure to read.

Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
post #82 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post
 

I guess you show the same loyalty to your family.

 

No, since I don't consider a company and my family in the same group and as such how I evaluate a company has no bearings on how I treat my family.  But apparently you consider Apple part of your family.  

post #83 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

The most idiotic post yet. Three lies that clueless posters always repeat about lawsuits: 1) lawsuits hurt innovation, 2) lawsuits cause higher prices, 3) lawsuits give consumers fewer choices. And you posted 2 out of 3. I guess you can't be perfect.

Stalling innovation? Outright lie. Patent lawsuits in the tech world have been around forever. Has innovation stalled the last 30 years? Not one bit. Look at any part of computer tech (processors, memory, displays, storage, cameras....). We have seen considerable advances in technology at a steady pace that hasn't let up. Ever. So much for stalling innovation.

Kill the competition? Another lie. At the end of this trial (like the last one) Samsung will have to pay Apple some money. Samsung isn't going out of business over a lawsuit and neither is anyone else. Even HTC (a much weaker company than Samsung) survived a major Apple lawsuit (and temporary sales ban) without any difficulty.
Not so much a lie as a difference of opinion and supported by whatever stats suit your fancy. Here are some on the other side supported by evidence that patent litigation, particularly but not exclusively by PAE's, can cause economic and social harm, demand resources better spent on building businesses, and potentially hinder the pace of innovation.

What's important to note is that some with these opinions actually have the power to change at least a few of the rules.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2012/5/v34n4-1.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/patent_report.pdf
http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/numbers-dont-lie-patent-trolls-are-plague-205192
http://www.svb.com/uploadedFiles/Blogs/10097/innovation-economy-outlook-patent-reform-0314.pdf
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/19/14 at 4:37pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #84 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post

Brand loyalty is great for a company.  It's an insult to the consumer.  Brand loyalty means your purchasing products based on who is putting it on the market - not because it's the best item for you.  I have no brand loyalty.  I do my research and buy products which fit my need the most, not because of a symbol etched on the exterior.  Whoever has the best product gets my money.
Brand loyalty comes from the best research of all. It can't be manipulated or influenced by cash or fear (losing an ad money provided by the company), this brand loyalty is trust that comes from companies actually making products that consistently satisfy you needs and makes your experience better. They continue to give more value than the competitors and with Apple it shows in the fact that if android is really selling so many more devices, then Apple customers actually use their phones a magnitude more. There are a great number of simple features that still don't work seamlessly on other platforms, like opening PDF or word files from an email. Simple moves that they do but don't tell you because they are too numerous to list them all. One that has been there since day one is turning the iPhone into a hands free phone by plugging an aux cable into you car and phone, it automatically turns on the mic and sends the sound to the car speakers.

If Apple stops providing the service we expect and the products that make our lives better we would change. If they were to switch to a model that scanned my emails, voice messages, and data in my phone to sell for profit I would jump ship immediately. I don't see that happening. Apple also resists the market's attempt to go back to a world where phones really don't get updates, forcing you to buy a new phone for any new features. While Apple releases new phones each year with a couple of features exclusive to them, usually because of hardware requirements, at least the last 3 generations get a slew of new capabilities. Because of this many can skip two cycles but still feel like they got a new phone each year. No other platform can claim this.
post #85 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

 

Okay I'll keep in mind that you're just another troll. The line goes back to S. S, S2, S3, S4....  What's after 4 Mr. Troll?

Siri was acquired by Apple in April 28, 2010 and rumors about iPhone 4S name was announced before Samsung Galaxy S was released not mention the iPhone 3G "S".. so who's trolling who?  

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
post #86 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Powell View Post

Ok, saying brand loyalty is pathetic is harsh, I get annoyed when that brand loyalty causes you to bash and hate on the competition. Being a fan is great, being a fanboy isn't. In my opinion Apple is stalling innovation with these idiotic patent trials. They're trying to kill the competition in the courtroom instead of the marketplace. 

What a load! Apple giving up their fight against the theft of their OS by Micro$haft demonstrably stalled innovation for ten freakin' years! Once something is "good enough" and cheaper innovation is going to stall right there. What you're saying is Apple's protection of their innovation from theft is stalling the process of creating "carrier friendly good enough" products—which is apparently the outcome you want to see.
post #87 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMember View Post

Siri was acquired by Apple in April 28, 2010 and rumors about iPhone 4S name was announced before Samsung Galaxy S was released not mention the iPhone 3G "S".. so who's trolling who?  

There's about a year a half between the two events (Galaxy S in May/10 and iPhone 4S in October/2011) so I doubt there was already much in the way of rumor on the naming of 4S 18 months ahead of time. So I don't really think the Galaxy S was so named in anticipation of the 4S either.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #88 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by shahhet2 View Post


You do know that separate motion sensor, slo Mo video at 720p and Camera on lock screen etc came on Motorola X before iPhones correct?

Nobody remembers who tried to cure cancer!

                                                                                  -The Way

 

The Slow Mo before iPhone was joke -only 0.1% from Android and iOS used that Gimmick

 

Jaibroken iOS was the first to add camera on Lock screen before  android -(inclunding Widgets) but Apple done it a better job the right way

 

 http://www.cultofmac.com/156692/how-to-get-ios-5-1-lock-screen-camera-shortcut-on-ios-5-0-1-right-now-jailbreak/

 

Do i need to continue....?

 

 

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
post #89 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post
 Apple also resists the market's attempt to go back to a world where phones really don't get updates, forcing you to buy a new phone for any new features. While Apple releases new phones each year with a couple of features exclusive to them, usually because of hardware requirements, at least the last 3 generations get a slew of new capabilities. Because of this many can skip two cycles but still feel like they got a new phone each year. No other platform can claim this.

 

Quite the opposite.  Most versions feature minor incremental updates save for the 1 feature which is exclusive to the item, i.e. 3G, Siri, TouchID for the purpose of making you purchase a new phone.  And let's not forget about the iPad where the iPad 3 was released and then 6 months later the iPad 4 with retina came out.   

post #90 of 132

Fundamentally the problem is Samsung smartphones aren't valuable. Until Samsung starts making better devices and stops wasting billions on advertising, the company won't have anything to pay Apple.

post #91 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


There's about a year a half between the two events (Galaxy S in May/10 and iPhone 4S in October/2011) so I doubt there was already much in the way of rumor on the naming of 4S 18 months ahead of time. So I don't really think the Galaxy S was so named in anticipation of the 4S either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/technology/29apple.html?_r=0

 

The link shows that Apple had acquired Siri and with iPhone 3G -"S"..   -Shamesung has done the math- with all the terrible things i said about Shamesung i never said they are terrible at copying in fact i think they are the best in the world at copying!

 

I'm sure if i search more i will find the link with iPhone 4S name before Samsung S was released    

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
post #92 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post
 

Quite the opposite.  Most versions feature minor incremental updates save for the 1 feature which is exclusive to the item, i.e. 3G, Siri, TouchID for the purpose of making you purchase a new phone.  And let's not forget about the iPad where the iPad 3 was released and then 6 months later the iPad 4 with retina came out.   

Ahem... TouchID arrived along with the 64-bit A7 processor and M7 coprocessor--that was a huge deal just by itself. And TouchID was a big enough deal for Samsung to (try to) provide a similar feature 6 months later. Every new model of iPhone has had some new feature(s) as well as a faster processor (often twice as fast).

 

The iPad 4 arrived with a 2X faster processor and the Lightning port. Apple was forced to bite the bullet on an early release of the iPad 4 because of the need to unify all iOS devices across its current product line on Lightning. The original 30-pin iPod connector was already about 10 years old. The double-speed processor was a super bonus. And this frequency of updates is uncharacteristic of Apple, so don't try to make it sound commonplace or like something Apple did without a lot of serious consideration of how people (like you) might try to "make hay" from it.


Edited by Cpsro - 4/19/14 at 5:23pm
post #93 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post
 

Ahem... TouchID arrived along with the 64-bit A7 processor and M7 coprocessor--that was a huge deal just by itself. And TouchID was a big enough deal for Samsung to (try to) provide a similar feature 6 months later. Every new model of iPhone has had some new feature(s) as well as a faster processor (often twice as fast).

 

The iPad 4 arrived with a 2X faster processor and the Lightning port. Apple was forced to bite the bullet on an early release of the iPad 4 because of the need to unify all iOS devices across its current product line on Lightning. The original 30-pin iPod connector was already about 10 years old. The double-speed processor was a super bonus. And this frequency of updates is uncharacteristic of Apple, so don't try to make it sound commonplace or like something Apple did without a lot of serious consideration of how people (like you) might try to "make hay" from it.

Agreed!, Also no one in the world has ever done what Apple did by introducing the revolutionary iPhone and 3 years later the revolutionary iPhone 4..when did Shamesung has ever done something like this lol!

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
post #94 of 132
Copying and duplicating is what Asian commerce is based on, I believe, and we see more copies of Western products in Asia than anywhere else. Check out China's copies of Western automobiles!

The value of a patent does not bestow easy infringement. If the court were to allow this line of reasoning to go forward the value of all patents and trademarks would be in danger.

Patent value is irrelevant to infringement. We need to hold this law and the views attached to it high. Regardless of "value", perceived or otherwise a patent is ironclad. You want to use it? Pay the asking price. There are rules here. We don't steal from our neighbor and tell the judge our covetous act was a compliment to the neighbors' taste.

Great write up.
post #95 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

If these patents are as worthless as Samsung claims, then why don't they just drop them out of their products? They'd lose nothing of any value, by their logic.

 

I was going to say almost the same thing lol.

 

Apple: "Then you'll quit using our patented features?"

 

Scamsung: "Wen you creates somethings else to copys that better, yes."

post #96 of 132
Samsung -- who declared internal crises of "design" and "understanding", desperately trying to comprehend (and replicate) how Apple gets their customers to flock to their stores and line up in droves for new product releases -- NOW declares that they KNOW the value (or lack thereof) of certain feature groups contained in those same Apple products.

Can't have it both ways Sammy... either you do NOT understand why Apple is so successful (and therefore cannot meaningfully inform the discussion of "what's valuable here"), or you DO understand -- as implied by this testimony -- and then the question becomes, why haven't you been able to replicate iPhone's profitability and success? Since you've "replicated" pretty much everything else related to iPhone marketing, design, accessories and implementation, and yet not achieved the same level of brand loyalty or overall "success".......

Attention to detail wins. Smart and meaningful implementation of features wins. High quality products at a fair price wins. Consistently meeting or exceeding expectations at all levels wins. I could add another couple of dozen of those. All Apple, little of it Samsung.

That's the reality... the patented features DO matter, because they define the win.

Case closed...
Edited by tribalogical - 4/19/14 at 8:07pm
post #97 of 132
What's funny is that Samung's defense is percisely the reason I love Apple. Apple's attention to even the smallest detail is remarkable and is well known in the industry. I don't care if Samsung thinks those things not important. True, there's a certain segment of the market who could care less, but I and many other people do care.
post #98 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

As noted by Re/code, the statement was slightly different from her deposition, in which Erdem said Apple's patents covered features that only a "weird" or "crazy person" or a "techno-whatever" would see as valuable.
Apparently Erdem was never into a situation were he had tell his wife "that his having a late night with his buddies" that way he would it known that having Slide to Unlock to a Multi-touchscreen is pretty damn usefull.

Shamesung is so pathetic that they couldnt even come with their own name for their products..they had to copy that too like the "Galaxy" name of their popular handsets wich was based on Apple OS X Wallpaper  

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
post #99 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post


And when did they begin using the S? Oh right, the year the 3GS came out.

 

You seem quite determined on this one. Are you suggesting it was an attempt to confuse the consumer? I don't really see it with S vs 3GS. Prior to this post it was about inversion of #S and S#.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iMember View Post
 

Siri was acquired by Apple in April 28, 2010 and rumors about iPhone 4S name was announced before Samsung Galaxy S was released not mention the iPhone 3G "S".. so who's trolling who?  

 

Well if you have to ask :D, you are the one posting abject nonsense. Some of you guys are really committed to the narrative for whatever reason. I initially called it due to trying to paint the inversion that way. Now it seems to be a contention of using S as a literal character within the name.

post #100 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Oh yes we...doh!

I'm sorry, is this the five minute argument? 1wink.gif
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
post #101 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

You seem quite determined on this one. Are you suggesting it was an attempt to confuse the consumer? I don't really see it with S vs 3GS. Prior to this post it was about inversion of #S and S#.


Well if you have to ask 1biggrin.gif, you are the one posting abject nonsense. Some of you guys are really committed to the narrative for whatever reason. I initially called it due to trying to paint the inversion that way. Now it seems to be a contention of using S as a literal character within the name.

You seem really naive.

It obvious that Samsung wants to have a S7 released before Apple has a 7S or 7s or earlier . That's how marketing works. The intention IS to confuse consumers.

Apple used the S to mean speed when upgrading from the 3G to 3GS. Then Apple used it to signify iterations on the same form factors.

What does the S stand for in the Galaxy line-up? Samsung Galaxy S(amsung)3,4,5?

It's their marketing you feeble minded toad.
post #102 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Other than one off-the-cuff remark to Hauser I don't believe Samsungs argument goes so far as to say the patents have no value. They argue they're not as valuable as Apple would like to claim, they also aren't infringed, and in addition some may not even be valid. They're all over the page and trying to cover all the bases but saying the patents have no value at all isn't one of them. I personally disagree with some of the arguments from both sides but doesn't matter as I'm not on the jury.

As an aside the text completion claim Apple is asserting against Samsung is looking like it may well be tossed by the USPTO. Until then Apple is within it's rights to collect royalties and/or damages on it. Seems a bit quirky that you can't get back money already paid when it's determined a patent should never have been granted as written in the first place. You end up paying for something the wasn't actually owned by the claimant, but it is what it is.

Another good comment by GG.

I think Apple is asking too much but at the same time, they did so expecting less than 1/2 asking, and they know they can't get any injunctions.

In regards to your second paragraph, I agree, although it may be reinforced and become even stronger, as one Apple Patent FM wrote about.

Samsung doesn't want to lose face, Asian culture about honor, so they don't want to settle and cross license. Samsung is 0-1 and wants to be 1-1 on wins and losses to restore their image. If Samsung losses, 0-2, they will settle with a cross licensing agreement while disparaging the US court system as biased against foreigners.
post #103 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post


You seem really naive.

It obvious that Samsung wants to have a S7 released before Apple has a 7S or 7s or earlier . That's how marketing works. The intention IS to confuse consumers.

Apple used the S to mean speed when upgrading from the 3G to 3GS. Then Apple used it to signify iterations on the same form factors.

What does the S stand for in the Galaxy line-up? Samsung Galaxy S(amsung)3,4,5?

It's their marketing you feeble minded toad.

 

That I elicited such an angry response says more about you than me. I suggest you read through the thread. This started with an argument over whether they intentionally used S5 as an inversion of 5S. I pointed to the progression of the line, as I think it's unlikely (and probably unprovable) that they tried to predict Apple's future naming convention and pick theirs in such a way that it would line up via inverted spelling every other generation.

post #104 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

There's about a year a half between the two events (Galaxy S in May/10 and iPhone 4S in October/2011) so I doubt there was already much in the way of rumor on the naming of 4S 18 months ahead of time. So I don't really think the Galaxy S was so named in anticipation of the 4S either.

3GS
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #105 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMember View Post

Besides those patents Shamesung copied more than 1000 things from Apple and whole world knows that, e
ven now recently they copied Apple'iPhone features with their S5: Fingerprint Scanner, Gold obtion color, Camera located on Locked Screen, Slow Mo 720p at 128 fps (Depth of field), fast autofocus, SHealth + Heartrate sensor (M7 + Nike app), TouchWizz (iOS 7 look)...i
 don't understand why Shamesung doesnt atleast pay for that 5 patents for what Apple is asking.

Especially the gold obtion color.
post #106 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Not so much a lie as a difference of opinion and supported by whatever stats suit your fancy. Here are some on the other side supported by evidence that patent litigation, particularly but not exclusively by PAE's, can cause economic and social harm, demand resources better spent on building businesses, and potentially hinder the pace of innovation.

What's important to note is that some with these opinions actually have the power to change at least a few of the rules.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2012/5/v34n4-1.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/patent_report.pdf
http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/numbers-dont-lie-patent-trolls-are-plague-205192
http://www.svb.com/uploadedFiles/Blogs/10097/innovation-economy-outlook-patent-reform-0314.pdf

Why don't you tell us how you would change it, instead of giving us some links (as you always seem to do). If you've read all this, surely you do have a view?
Edited by anantksundaram - 4/20/14 at 7:27am
post #107 of 132

I think that the discussion of if they are valid is off topic.  Say they are, does not matter, they are granted, Samsung crossed the line.  Now maybe they have them declared invalid, I think that Samsung should still have to pay for the time they used them when they were valid.

post #108 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Why don't you tell us how you would change it, instead of giving us some links (as you always seem to do). If you've read all this, surely you do have a view?

First: Make business methods un-patentable

Second: Require disclosure of the true owner of a patent. If you don't know who owns one how do you contact them for licensing discussions or understand what your options might be?

Third: Make "loser pays" a required and written consideration by the courts in at least patent infringement cases (maybe cast a wider net than that to include some other types of damage claims). That might help avoid some lawsuits from patentees on a fishing expedition.

Fourth: have an honest debate on whether patents as a category should have the period of exclusive use reduced from the current 20 years ( and even longer in certain circumstances).

Fifth: Disallow infringement action over patent claims that would not have specifically anticipated the current use. Tighten claims construction standards, requiring greater specificity during USPTO patent app exams.

Sixth: Enact a "window of opportunity" for patentee's to notify a potential infringer, say for instance within 24 months of the time they become aware of it. Plenty liberal enough. No more sitting on a knowledge of potential infringement until that entity has a successful and/or profitable product or feature that might make use of it. That single requirement would heavily impact the actions of "patent trolls"

Seventh: Limit damages to the period only after the potential infringer was notified in writing. No going back years to claim damages on something the possible infringer might not and in some cases could not have been aware of. That's another thing "trolls" won't like.

You're more than welcome to comment on any or all of those points Anant rather than just lobbing the snarky one and two liners "as you always seem to do". I would imagine you disagree with some of them and have supportable reasons for it.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/20/14 at 9:26am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #109 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Bonner View Post

I think that the discussion of if they are valid is off topic.  Say they are, does not matter, they are granted, Samsung crossed the line.  Now maybe they have them declared invalid, I think that Samsung should still have to pay for the time they used them when they were valid.

The law disagrees with you. Questions on validity is a proper defense, and IMO should be. Apple themselves often makes that part of their strategy against patent claims.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #110 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Powell View Post

It's funny when people think if Apple/Samsung win, they win. Brand loyalty is pathetic.

As opposed to what .....no loyalty at all ?

See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #111 of 132
Seems to me that Samsung is admitting they copied but their defense is "yeah we copied so what, that stuff is not important. So na nanana booboo"
post #112 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Powell View Post

Brand loyalty is pathetic.

 

Brand loyalty is not pathetic. It's highly sought after by companies big and small. Companies like Samsung covet Apple's brand loyalty, even if they don't understand it. Their ads have poked fun at Apple line-waiters, but in reality, Samsung has sent marketing people to interview real line-waiters about why they stand in line for Apple products. They've never seen anything like it before in the smart phone world. Back when Palm Treo and BlackBerry ruled the smartphone world, nobody stood in long lines for days.

 

I get that you think you're smarter than everyone who loves their favorite brand. I get that you think they are pathetic. I get that you probably think it's not deserved. But for the businesses who have earned it, through consistent delivery and service, it is deserved. And they have to continue to work hard to keep it, so it keeps their standards high. Reputation capital earns brand loyalty over time, and this is ingrained in human nature. If you don't get that, you don't get humans, and that doesn't make you "smarter than" or "above" the rest of us. If you reduce the B2C relationship to a purely economic transaction ("dollars for devices"), you're just as clueless as Samsung.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #113 of 132
3GS, 4S.

Your turn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


I hope you're being sarcastic on that one, considering the use of S through S4.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #114 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post

Quite the opposite.  Most versions feature minor incremental updates save for the 1 feature which is exclusive to the item, i.e. 3G, Siri, TouchID for the purpose of making you purchase a new phone.  And let's not forget about the iPad where the iPad 3 was released and then 6 months later the iPad 4 with retina came out.   

Running an iPhone4. Enough said.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #115 of 132

there valid patents right now...samsung's case is there not of much value and apple is not telling u the right price...plus there are all the other patents there using and the design that is a total rip but you can't do anything about this in this case.

 

If samsung was not a huge company would this not have been stopped a long time ago...sony paid the price of samsung bad biz ethics now we are asked to let them try and kill apple...apple's way out is to innovate more...how is that justice.

 

Samsung has no defend on that they innovated any of this...a total ban on these product is the only way to make them change there ways.

 

this is the corp way...use lawyers and bury the competition...unlucky for them there competition is also there biggest customer...and has time and monies to get a little justice ...but still can't block them from using these patents.

post #116 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

3GS, 4S.

Your turn.


It has been repeated already. The 3GS was around the time of the original Galaxy S, or at least close enough. I mentioned that they just continued with that naming convention. What makes you think it was deliberately aligned that way? They do ape Apple quite a bit, but this isn't a case where I see it as valuable marketing. I think some of you are so used to Samsung aping Apple that you view everything as a knockoff.

post #117 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

First: Make business methods un-patentable

Second: Require disclosure of the true owner of a patent. If you don't know who owns one how do you contact them for licensing discussions or understand what your options might be?

Third: Make "loser pays" a required and written consideration by the courts in at least patent infringement cases (maybe cast a wider net than that to include some other types of damage claims). That might help avoid some lawsuits from patentees on a fishing expedition.

Fourth: have an honest debate on whether patents as a category should have the period of exclusive use reduced from the current 20 years ( and even longer in certain circumstances).

Fifth: Disallow infringement action over patent claims that would not have specifically anticipated the current use. Tighten claims construction standards, requiring greater specificity during USPTO patent app exams.

Sixth: Enact a "window of opportunity" for patentee's to notify a potential infringer, say for instance within 24 months of the time they become aware of it. Plenty liberal enough. No more sitting on a knowledge of potential infringement until that entity has a successful and/or profitable product or feature that might make use of it. That single requirement would heavily impact the actions of "patent trolls"

Seventh: Limit damages to the period only after the potential infringer was notified in writing. No going back years to claim damages on something the possible infringer might not and in some cases could not have been aware of. That's another thing "trolls" won't like.

You're more than welcome to comment on any or all of those points Anant rather than just lobbing the snarky one and two liners "as you always seem to do". I would imagine you disagree with some of them and have supportable reasons for it.

Thank you for a thoughtful post.

 

I am not sure how any of it applies to the currently ongoing Apple-Samsung case -- pray tell? That said, let me respond to each.

 

1) Not possible. 'Business methods' is too broad. I can see definitions stretching all the way from the specific process by which Corning makes fiberglass or a specific process for making drugs, to the way a company answers a telephone or compensates an employee. I really don't understand what the phrase means. If you mean the latter variety, yes. But could you be more specific? And where would you draw the line for what is an un-patentable business method?

 

2) I don't understand. What do you mean by 'true' owner? The person/entity who originally did the research/development that led to the patent, or the person/entity who currently (fairly, legitimately bought the property and) owns it? Again, this is a vague term. 

 

3) 'Loser pays' is not an option in any major aspect of US jurisprudence. It would not be possible to allow it one arena and not another. You can't wish for something like that in just IP law. The entire sub-structure of the practice of law in the US across every aspect of it would have to be changed. Realistically speaking, it's wishful thinking: simply not possible.

 

The reason? The argument goes that such a system would discriminate against the poor, since, all else equal (and given that all outcome is probabilistic), the poor will be less motivated to bring suits. Indeed, the 'hire a lawyer on a contingency fee' system in the US is seen as a further step towards tilting the playing field in favor of the less powerful.

 

(Other countries, such as the UK, do have a 'loser pays' system, and they don't allow lawyers on contingency)

 

4) This is a fair point. Especially in tech, where not just product life cycles, but even product category life cycles, are much shorter.

 

5) I am sincerely unable to parse this sentence (a triple negative, I think). I just don't follow what you're saying here.

 

6) I can't quarrel with that. Although, sometimes, building a case -- especially when two well-resourced companies with armies of lawyers are involved, and the case involves a dispute between cross-border entities -- does take time. So there has to be some exceptions.

 

I tend to think though, that in such rapidly changing industries, the amount of time that the lawyers and judges take to actually bring things to closure is getting to be laughably ridiculous.

 

7) I can't quarrel with that. Again, there may be exceptions in such rapidly-changing industries as the one we're currently talking about. But more generally, it simply follows the principle that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse.' It is meant perhaps as a deterrent: that someone should take the trouble to scope out what is out there that is already available to license, before just plowing ahead thinking they've invented the wheel.

 

I am failing to see, however, why/how/where any of the above applies to Apple v. Samsung Round 2? Please elaborate?

post #118 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Powell View Post

Brand loyalty is pathetic.

 

Brand loyalty is not pathetic. It's highly sought after by companies big and small. Companies like Samsung covet Apple's brand loyalty, even if they don't understand it. Their ads have poked fun at Apple line-waiters, but in reality, Samsung has sent marketing people to interview real line-waiters about why they stand in line for Apple products. They've never seen anything like it before in the smart phone world. Back when Palm Treo and BlackBerry ruled the smartphone world, nobody stood in long lines for days.

 

I get that you think you're smarter than everyone who loves their favorite brand. I get that you think they are pathetic. I get that you probably think it's not deserved. But for the businesses who have earned it, through consistent delivery and service, it is deserved. And they have to continue to work hard to keep it, so it keeps their standards high. Reputation capital earns brand loyalty over time, and this is ingrained in human nature. If you don't get that, you don't get humans, and that doesn't make you "smarter than" or "above" the rest of us. If you reduce the B2C relationship to a purely economic transaction ("dollars for devices"), you're just as clueless as Samsung.

Great post.

 

But, fwiw, don't waste your time trying to enlighten the clueless.

post #119 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

If these patents are as worthless as Samsung claims, then why don't they just drop them out of their products? They'd lose nothing of any value, by their logic.

RIGHT ON!

Samsung admits to copying Apple's features, then claims those features are of little value.

OK Samsung be smart for a change; 

   remove those Apple useless features and stop copying useless features from Apple immediately.

post #120 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMember View Post
 

Nobody remembers who tried to cure cancer!

                                                                                  -The Way

 

The Slow Mo before iPhone was joke -only 0.1% from Android and iOS used that Gimmick

 

Jaibroken iOS was the first to add camera on Lock screen before  android -(inclunding Widgets) but Apple done it a better job the right way

 

 http://www.cultofmac.com/156692/how-to-get-ios-5-1-lock-screen-camera-shortcut-on-ios-5-0-1-right-now-jailbreak/

 

Do i need to continue....?

 

 

Have you even seen those feature on Moto X or other phones outside your small world of Apple? Oh wait, you don't even know that exists.

It is worthless to discuss anything who can't listen outside their little world who thinks what Apple does is always best blindly.

 

Beside that, Wasn't discussion about Who did it first from Patent point of view. Why someone always thinks that everything that Apple does is always the first time that feature existed, including notifications or whatever it is!!!! 

 

Do you know how many more features exists on jail braked Android? Oh Wait, you don't even know you can do anything with that. It's normally practice of fanboys, who can't have anything left to prove, they will go to list jail brake feature.


Edited by shahhet2 - 4/20/14 at 1:18pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung experts say Apple's patented features not valuable in trial