or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Jury awards Apple $119.6M, Samsung $158K in damages after finding both guilty of patent infringement
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jury awards Apple $119.6M, Samsung $158K in damages after finding both guilty of patent... - Page 7

post #241 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 
Quote:
$1.4 billion SWAG.

You seem considerably older than the kind of people associated with using that word. Unless it’s an acronym that I’m missing. “Suit Winning Amazing damaGes…”


Scientific Wild-Assed Guess ...

First heard the term used in a programming class in the mid 1960s -- I was 25 then ...

Everything old is new again... If I remember correctly???

 

I use it all the time in my profession.   except I learned it to mean "Simple Wild Ass Guess".   But I think your version is funnier. 

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #242 of 287

The pundits say Samsung and Google won in the end.  They are wrong.  Guilty is guilty.  These days a lot of people have thick face skins.  Their noses are also especially long.  They all know Jobs outrages.  They pretend they have not read Jobs words. 

 

From now on, no Androids can use these three court validated patents.  Without slide to unlock, without data detection, the Android users know they are hopelessly using an inferior device. 


Edited by tzeshan - 5/3/14 at 6:57pm
post #243 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post
 

Justice is always reprehensible to the unjust.

 

Tell that to the over 2000 people wrongfully convict of crimes over the last 23 years.

post #244 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

I guess if you're an atheist, you now have a creed for life: follow Samsung.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

 I sincerely hope that dreadful things happen to all who have been involved in defending Samsung. I have no faith that an appeal will reverse this gross injustice; as such, the only recourse is to hope for divine judgement.

 

Wow! What is your belief system - I wish to avoid it!

post #245 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post
 

The pundits say Samsung and Google won in the end.  They are wrong.  Guilty is guilty.  These days a lot of people have thick face skins.  Their noses are also especially long.  They all know Jobs outrages.  They pretend they have not read Jobs words. 

 

From now on, no Androids can use these three court validated patents.  Without slide to unlock, without data detection, the Android users know they are hopelessly using an inferior device. 

Linkify-like code is used so commonly in web applications that people have written dozens of javascript libraries providing functionality comparable to Linkify. See this stackoverflow thread for example (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/37684/how-to-replace-plain-urls-with-links). Should  web developers start worrying about infringing the data detector patent?


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 5/3/14 at 7:16pm
post #246 of 287
Best result for Apple. Jury did not invalidate any of Apple patents.
post #247 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post
 

The pundits say Samsung and Google won in the end.  They are wrong.  Guilty is guilty.  These days a lot of people have thick face skins.  Their noses are also especially long.  They all know Jobs outrages.  They pretend they have not read Jobs words. 

 

From now on, no Androids can use these three court validated patents.  Without slide to unlock, without data detection, the Android users know they are hopelessly using an inferior device. 

From the amount awarded versus the amount demanded it looks like a "win" for Samsung. A fine that is practically pocket change for these companies means there is no "stick" to stop any infringing behaviour. It becomes a small cost of business. Outside the two camps who will support the standpoint of their chosen one the response will be "meh" and "what are they still squabbling.. oh grow up". These sort of legal disputes are a joy to the techies, nerds, fanbois and the media but to the rest of the world.. not.

 

Whilst in Europe any android phone, Samsung or HTC etc can still use slide to unlock to their hearts content. as its not even a valid patent and Samsung is not even copying Aplle, though now officially not as cool.

post #248 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by singularity View Post

What are they still squabbling.. oh grow up.


Grow Up to Sell Your SOUL & MIND to DEVIL, Don't YOU, Dr. FAUST !
post #249 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by singularity View Post
 

From the amount awarded versus the amount demanded it looks like a "win" for Samsung. A fine that is practically pocket change for these companies means there is no "stick" to stop any infringing behaviour. It becomes a small cost of business. Outside the two camps who will support the standpoint of their chosen one the response will be "meh" and "what are they still squabbling.. oh grow up". These sort of legal disputes are a joy to the techies, nerds, fanbois and the media but to the rest of the world.. not.

 

Whilst in Europe any android phone, Samsung or HTC etc can still use slide to unlock to their hearts content. as its not even a valid patent and Samsung is not even copying Aplle, though now officially not as cool.

 

This behaviour is not new to Samsung, it has been their modus operandi for decades.

 

As long as they can get enough suckers to buy their crap they will continue to get away with this shit.

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 #250 of 287

lol, this is so far off the hardcore fanboy predictions this site did....  

post #251 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

lol, this is so far off the hardcore fanboy predictions this site did....  

What?

That due to the dearth of innovation shown by Samsung, their high end sales will continue to slump as a real innovator like Apple steams ahead with 64bit smartphone goodness.
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 #252 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by singularity View Post
 

From the amount awarded versus the amount demanded it looks like a "win" for Samsung. A fine that is practically pocket change for these companies means there is no "stick" to stop any infringing behaviour. It becomes a small cost of business. Outside the two camps who will support the standpoint of their chosen one the response will be "meh" and "what are they still squabbling.. oh grow up". These sort of legal disputes are a joy to the techies, nerds, fanbois and the media but to the rest of the world.. not.

 

Whilst in Europe any android phone, Samsung or HTC etc can still use slide to unlock to their hearts content. as its not even a valid patent and Samsung is not even copying Aplle, though now officially not as cool.

HTC has settled with Apple two years ago.  There is a rumor that HTC is paying Apple licensing fee.  Apple only wants $40.  Why is it so hard for Samsung.  It sells S5 and Note 3 for $799.  PC makers also pay Microsoft $40 to license Windows. 

post #253 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post
 

HTC has settled with Apple two years ago.  There is a rumor that HTC is paying Apple licensing fee.  Apple only wants $40.  Why is it so hard for Samsung.  It sells S5 and Note 3 for $799.  PC makers also pay Microsoft $40 to license Windows. 

It is possible that Samsung will choose to license.  Google the real thief behind all this will be the biggest loser.  It makes little money giving away Android OS.  Its ad charges less on mobile devices.  

post #254 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post
 

HTC has settled with Apple two years ago.  There is a rumor that HTC is paying Apple licensing fee.  Apple only wants $40.  Why is it so hard for Samsung.  It sells S5 and Note 3 for $799.  PC makers also pay Microsoft $40 to license Windows. 

 

We don't actually know HTC's terms. They could be any amount. The other comparison is an entire OS rather than components of one. It's not a very good comparison.

post #255 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

We don't actually know HTC's terms. They could be any amount. The other comparison is an entire OS rather than components of one. It's not a very good comparison.

The monetary terms aren't known, but the rest of it pretty much is.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/htc-agreed-not-to-clone-apples-products.html?m=1
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #256 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


The monetary terms aren't known, but the rest of it pretty much is.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/htc-agreed-not-to-clone-apples-products.html?m=1


Note that I was responding to someone who referred specifically to the monetary terms, and then tried to extrapolate from there.
This stipulation from your link may have greatly influenced monetary negotiations. HTC hasn't been doing that well with smartphones, so it's unlikely that they could absorb the cost of ongoing litigation with uncertain outcome or high licensing costs. The issue of arbitration also limits the potential legal costs on both sides.

 

Quote:
The Apple-HTC agreement requires the parties to resolve through arbitration any dispute over whether or not an HTC product is an "HTC Cloned Product" or whether a feature in an HTC product is an "HTC Cloned Feature". If the arbitrators determine that an allegation of cloning was baseless, HTC is fine. If there is a finding of cloning, HTC will have 90 days to remedy the problem, and if cloning doesn't end at that point, Apple "will be entitled to seek an injunction from any applicable court of competent jurisdiction with respect to such Cloning during the Term, subject to applicable governing law".
post #257 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by R2D2 View Post



Wow! What is your belief system - I wish to avoid it!

One in which stealing is wrong. As you wish to avoid it, I suggest you apply to work for Samsung if you don't already; they like thieves.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #258 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by R2D2 View Post
 

 

 

 

Wow! What is your belief system - I wish to avoid it!

 

Yes, I highly recommend avoiding it (especially if you've seen evidence of it on other threads here as well - nasty stuff).

 

Anyway, I can understand the fatigue that people have about these lawsuits, and although I agree with some of the calls for reform of the patent system, I do think there is value in seeing these arguments play out with independent judgment occurring.

 

It is increasingly the case that software rules all in terms of being a product differential. And although there are some who question patenting software designs, I do think that there needs to be some deterrent in place to stop companies from blatantly ripping each other off.

 

The only thing that frustrates me is that the line can be so grey that people easily get confused. I often see articles about these lawsuits being countered by Samsung fans who basically say things like "Well, Apple didn't invent the mouse - they copied it from Xerox" and so on - clearly, statements like this misunderstand the nuances of product development and "copying". That's a tricky terrain to navigate in some ways, but I think it's important to have that conversation.

post #259 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingsoc View Post

Yes, I highly recommend avoiding it (especially if you've seen evidence of it on other threads here as well - nasty stuff).

Anyway, I can understand the fatigue that people have about these lawsuits, and although I agree with some of the calls for reform of the patent system, I do think there is value in seeing these arguments play out with independent judgment occurring.

It is increasingly the case that software rules all in terms of being a product differential. And although there are some who question patenting software designs, I do think that there needs to be some deterrent in place to stop companies from blatantly ripping each other off.

The only thing that frustrates me is that the line can be so grey that people easily get confused. I often see articles about these lawsuits being countered by Samsung fans who basically say things like "Well, Apple didn't invent the mouse - they copied it from Xerox" and so on - clearly, statements like this misunderstand the nuances of product development and "copying". That's a tricky terrain to navigate in some ways, but I think it's important to have that conversation.

You're the kind of Android apologist that doesn't entirely dismiss patents but feels there should be some vague 'conversation' about them. You have half a care.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #260 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post


You're the kind of Android apologist that doesn't entirely dismiss patents but feels there should be some vague 'conversation' about them. You have half a care.

 

What this tells me is that you haven't read very much of my posts on these forums generally (in fact, I'm not even sure that you read the very post you responded to just now - otherwise you may have seen me defending Apple's right to patent software features).

If you had, you'd realise how entirely wrong this comment is.

post #261 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingsoc View Post

What this tells me is that you haven't read very much of my posts on these forums generally (in fact, I'm not even sure that you read the very post you responded to just now - otherwise you may have seen me defending Apple's right to patent software features).
If you had, you'd realise how entirely wrong this comment is.

I was perhaps a bit harsh on you. However, your comment that 'software rules all in terms of being a product differential' is silly. Also, your sympathy for those who are 'fatigued' by the patent lawsuits I find weak and wrong-hearted.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #262 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post


I was perhaps a bit harsh on you. However, your comment that 'software rules all in terms of being a product differential' is silly. Also, your sympathy for those who are 'fatigued' by the patent lawsuits I find weak and wrong-hearted.

 

I don't take issue with the harshness (others can judge that for themselves) - the problem is that you answered a point I didn't make.

This latest post comes slightly closer, but is still filled with silly emotive rhetoric. Nevertheless, in an attempt to make my thoughts clearer, I'll have a go at responding.

 

On the first point about software ruling all; what's silly is if you only take that at face value and therefore misunderstand the point (which you apparently did).

 

The point I was making is the exact point that Steve Jobs made years ago about the iPod. He explained that on the surface, iPod is "just a small computer". What makes it a killer product is the software (and now, we might add "services" or "ecosystem" to that point).

 

The same is absolutely true about smart phones. The key differential is the software; the operating system and its UI, the ecosystem, the content. This does not mean that hardware can't be a differential, but software is key and Apple understands this.

 

Some people (perhaps the Android apologists you speak of?) occasionally suggest that no company should ever be able to patent or copyright aspects of software design. A subset of those people make valid points about "patent trolling" and overstretching the bounds of IP - but generally, what they are missing is that the competition and innovation is really being driven from the software end of things. In that kind of environment, I believe you have to allow companies to (within reason) patent and copyright designs so that there is an incentive to innovate (where those innovations can be protected from rip-offs).

 

On the second point...weak and wrong-hearted? Are you even serious, or are you just trolling now?

 

How is it weak and wrong-hearted to be tired of the constant legal battles? I would hazard a guess that Tim Cook himself is tired of them! Being tired of these battles does not mean that I don't support Apple's right to defend its patents, and you would be stretching the bow rather far to glean such an interpretation from my comments.

 

Instead of being needlessly emotive and silly, it would be helpful to focus on the substance of what I'm saying. I hope that this post clarifies significantly. If not, feel free to ask a question of me (perhaps without the clumsy attempts to insult me on a personal level).

post #263 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirLance99 View Post


Just how am I'm peddling? When in FACT just as Samsung was found guilty Apple was found guilty. So what you're saying is that it doesn't matter that Apple was found guilty?

Look, I think this whole thing is BS and both should fight on the field with products and not in the courts. Apple is not all that Holy as you seem to think they are. They do many bad things just like every single corporation in the world. That's just how it is unfortunately.

There is no equivalence in "guilt" between the two parties, so why even attempt it, SirLance99? 

 

Samsung is a serial infringer and this is part and partial of its infringement pattern. Read the following:

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war

post #264 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by singularity View Post
 

From the amount awarded versus the amount demanded it looks like a "win" for Samsung. A fine that is practically pocket change for these companies means there is no "stick" to stop any infringing behaviour. It becomes a small cost of business. Outside the two camps who will support the standpoint of their chosen one the response will be "meh" and "what are they still squabbling.. oh grow up". These sort of legal disputes are a joy to the techies, nerds, fanbois and the media but to the rest of the world.. not.

 

Whilst in Europe any android phone, Samsung or HTC etc can still use slide to unlock to their hearts content. as its not even a valid patent and Samsung is not even copying Aplle, though now officially not as cool.

You are in the UK. Britain's last important inventions were RADAR, VSTOL, the angle deck, and jet engines, some 70 years ago. Computers and Software have been for the most part very U.S. centric since the mid 50's, so naturally, the value is greater here in the U.S.

 

Enjoy your Samsung/


Edited by tmay - 5/4/14 at 6:12pm
post #265 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

One can only hope. It's all getting a bit old.

Justice is always reprehensible to the unjust.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingsoc View Post
 

 

I don't take issue with the harshness (others can judge that for themselves) - the problem is that you answered a point I didn't make.

This latest post comes slightly closer, but is still filled with silly emotive rhetoric. Nevertheless, in an attempt to make my thoughts clearer, I'll have a go at responding.

 

On the first point about software ruling all; what's silly is if you only take that at face value and therefore misunderstand the point (which you apparently did).

 

The point I was making is the exact point that Steve Jobs made years ago about the iPod. He explained that on the surface, iPod is "just a small computer". What makes it a killer product is the software (and now, we might add "services" or "ecosystem" to that point).

 

The same is absolutely true about smart phones. The key differential is the software; the operating system and its UI, the ecosystem, the content. This does not mean that hardware can't be a differential, but software is key and Apple understands this.

 

Some people (perhaps the Android apologists you speak of?) occasionally suggest that no company should ever be able to patent or copyright aspects of software design. A subset of those people make valid points about "patent trolling" and overstretching the bounds of IP - but generally, what they are missing is that the competition and innovation is really being driven from the software end of things. In that kind of environment, I believe you have to allow companies to (within reason) patent and copyright designs so that there is an incentive to innovate (where those innovations can be protected from rip-offs).

 

On the second point...weak and wrong-hearted? Are you even serious, or are you just trolling now?

 

How is it weak and wrong-hearted to be tired of the constant legal battles? I would hazard a guess that Tim Cook himself is tired of them! Being tired of these battles does not mean that I don't support Apple's right to defend its patents, and you would be stretching the bow rather far to glean such an interpretation from my comments.

 

Instead of being needlessly emotive and silly, it would be helpful to focus on the substance of what I'm saying. I hope that this post clarifies significantly. If not, feel free to ask a question of me (perhaps without the clumsy attempts to insult me on a personal level).

To address the second point: the reason it's weak and wrong-hearted to be tired of defending patents is because it suggests that your heart is not in it; in other words, you don't feel that it is worth the effort. If you were an inventor with a patent to your name which was stolen, I think you would understand the reason why patents are worth defending. It's the implication which I object to. Yes, Tim Cook may well be tired of the legal procedures; that doesn't mean that he thinks that patents are pointless or that he should never have tried defending them in the first place. Most trolls here who say that they are tired of the constant legal battles are promoting the abolition of most or all patents. I therefore am very suspicious when you talk about being tired of the legal aspects. What do you mean by it anyway? If you find the media coverage tedious, just skip it; it's hardly difficult.

 

On the first point: again, it's a question of tone. You say that software is a key differential; I say that's bollocks. Software is very important, but so is hardware, so is services, so is the ecosystem. One of the key selling-points of the iPod was its form factor-it was light, slim, cool-looking and very compact and therefore mobile; all hardware features. 

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #266 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

 

To address the second point: the reason it's weak and wrong-hearted to be tired of defending patents is because it suggests that your heart is not in it; in other words, you don't feel that it is worth the effort. If you were an inventor with a patent to your name which was stolen, I think you would understand the reason why patents are worth defending. It's the implication which I object to. Yes, Tim Cook may well be tired of the legal procedures; that doesn't mean that he thinks that patents are pointless or that he should never have tried defending them in the first place. Most trolls here who say that they are tired of the constant legal battles are promoting the abolition of most or all patents. I therefore am very suspicious when you talk about being tired of the legal aspects. What do you mean by it anyway? If you find the media coverage tedious, just skip it; it's hardly difficult.

 

On the first point: again, it's a question of tone. You say that software is a key differential; I say that's bollocks. Software is very important, but so is hardware, so is services, so is the ecosystem. One of the key selling-points of the iPod was its form factor-it was light, slim, cool-looking and very compact and therefore mobile; all hardware features. 

 

Your first paragraph utterly ignores my post. Let me show you. Here's what I said:

 

Being tired of these battles does not mean that I don't support Apple's right to defend its patents.

 

Here's what you just said:

 

If you were an inventor with a patent to your name which was stolen, I think you would understand the reason why patents are worth defending. It's the implication which I object to. Yes, Tim Cook may well be tired of the legal procedures; that doesn't mean that he thinks that patents are pointless or that he should never have tried defending them in the first place.

 

Now, you either didn't understand my clear and plain English point or you did not read it.

 

Same story for your second paragraph; when are you going to actually respond to a point I've made?

Your comments almost entirely repeat what I just explained about differentials.

post #267 of 287
Quote:

Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by R2D2 View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

 I sincerely hope that dreadful things happen to all who have been involved in defending Samsung. I have no faith that an appeal will reverse this gross injustice; as such, the only recourse is to hope for divine judgement.

 

Wow! What is your belief system - I wish to avoid it!
 
One in which stealing is wrong. As you wish to avoid it, I suggest you apply to work for Samsung if you don't already; they like thieves.

 

So if I'm not wrong you would celebrate something "dreadful" happening to someone BUT stealing is wrong?! And because I called you out on it, I might work for Samsung AND I'm a thief too?!  Dude!!

post #268 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmay View Post

You are in the UK. Britain's last important inventions were RADAR, VSTOL, the angle deck, and jet engines, some 70 years ago. Computers and Software have been for the most part very U.S. centric since the mid 50's, so naturally, the value is greater here in the U.S.

Enjoy your Samsung/

Dyson is a British company, the latest of Samsung's victims, Samsung just stole there patented tech, tied them up in court cases until they gave up and now have the temerity to sue Dyson over making the accusation.

Samsung is ruthless, they want people to get tired and give up.

They chose the wrong company when they started playing their games with Apple.

Apple should stand their ground and hit Samsung's newer devices with a new round of court cases.

I wonder how many patents Apple has on their implementation of 64 bit?
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 #269 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


I wonder how many patents Apple has on their implementation of 64 bit?

 

What do you mean? There are some things that are specification based. For example ARM has specifications for a 64 bit instruction set. Saying something is 64 bit just means the registers and word sizes are 8 bytes. You can't possibly think Apple will be the only one to migrate to that. I'm also extremely skeptical that they would try to knock off Apple's chips. Their more costly devices all seem to use Qualcomm chips. I'm skeptical here because all of the legal battles thus far have been over software. You have moved into low level implementation details.

Edit: well software and aesthetic design

post #270 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

What do you mean? There are some things that are specification based. For example ARM has specifications for a 64 bit instruction set. Saying something is 64 bit just means the registers and word sizes are 8 bytes. You can't possibly think Apple will be the only one to migrate to that. I'm also extremely skeptical that they would try to knock off Apple's chips. Their more costly devices all seem to use Qualcomm chips. I'm skeptical here because all of the legal battles thus far have been over software. You have moved into low level implementation details.
Edit: well software and aesthetic design

What is the question was changed to: I wonder how many patents Apple has on their implementation of they A-series chips?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #271 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


What is the question was changed to: I wonder how many patents Apple has on their implementation of they A-series chips?

 

It seems unlikely. Like I mentioned they're not even using their own chips in flagship devices.

post #272 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

It seems unlikely. Like I mentioned they're not even using their own chips in flagship devices.

Huh?! Apple uses their A-series chips in their iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, and even their Apple TV. Between the different package designs that on the A7 include 4MiB of RAM and a "secure enclave" I could Apple having patented various aspects of their innovative designs.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #273 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Huh?! Apple uses their A-series chips in their iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, and even their Apple TV. Between the different package designs that on the A7 include 4MiB of RAM and a "secure enclave" I could Apple having patented various aspects of their innovative designs.


Oh! I thought you meant Samsung. I was referring to contention between the two companies. I meant that it's less likely that Samsung would run afoul of Apple patents on their SoCs when Samsung doesn't use their own chips in top models.

post #274 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmay View Post
 

You are in the UK. Britain's last important inventions were RADAR, VSTOL, the angle deck, and jet engines, some 70 years ago. Computers and Software have been for the most part very U.S. centric since the mid 50's, so naturally, the value is greater here in the U.S.

 

Enjoy your Samsung/

Tim Berners-Lee might have invented something reasonably important ;) and im sure the UK has invented the odd thing since then but as you want to say massive sweeping generalisations we in the uk do nothing but drink tea and chat with the queen.

 

I will enjoy my samsung smart tv, as well as other tech goodies. In fact I will enjoy all my tech goodies and when new ones are released (wife permitting) I will buy new stuff.

post #275 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


What is the question was changed to: I wonder how many patents Apple has on their implementation of they A-series chips?

I would think that most relevant patents are held by ARM, which owns the ARMv8 instruction set. For example Intel holds the patent to the x86 instruction set and licenses the instruction set to AMD which then implements it using its own chip designs; similarly AMD licenses the AMD64 instruction set to Intel. As for designing the chips themselves once one has an instruction set, there must be quite a few general principles involved since electrical engineers all learn microprocessor design in college and graduate school.

post #276 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


Oh! I thought you meant Samsung. I was referring to contention between the two companies. I meant that it's less likely that Samsung would run afoul of Apple patents on their SoCs when Samsung doesn't use their own chips in top models.

Oh, yeah, I don't think Apple needs to worry about Samsung stealing their chip designs, just curious if there is any Apple IP that can be protected here
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

I would think that most relevant patents are held by ARM, which owns the ARMv8 instruction set. For example Intel holds the patent to the x86 instruction set and licenses the instruction set to AMD which then implements it using its own chip designs; similarly AMD licenses the AMD64 instruction set to Intel. As for designing the chips themselves once one has an instruction set, there must be quite a few general principles involved since electrical engineers all learn microprocessor design in college and graduate school.

But outside of the ARM ISA — remember these SoCs contain many packages and it's even been said that Apple does manual layouts — there is plenty of tech that ARM didn't create. For example, can others include their own "secure enclave" that mirror's how Apple created and included theirs, or is that something that is wholly Apple's design and therefore protectable?
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/5/14 at 8:12am

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #277 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by singularity View Post
 

Tim Berners-Lee might have invented something reasonably important ;) and im sure the UK has invented the odd thing since then but as you want to say massive sweeping generalisations we in the uk do nothing but drink tea and chat with the queen.

 

I will enjoy my samsung smart tv, as well as other tech goodies. In fact I will enjoy all my tech goodies and when new ones are released (wife permitting) I will buy new stuff.

Of course its an overgeneralization, but you comment as if you have no skin in the game, happy to take advantage of what are legally IP infringements in U.S. Law, and a Samsung legacy built on significant IP theft and collusion with competitors. I'm guessing Dyson isn't all that happy about IP theft, as noted by another poster.

 

Tim Berners-Lee invented the internet on a NeXT Computer, not on a Samsung Computer, BTW.

post #278 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmay View Post
 

Of course its an overgeneralization, but you comment as if you have no skin in the game, happy to take advantage of what are legally IP infringements in U.S. Law, and a Samsung legacy built on significant IP theft and collusion with competitors. I'm guessing Dyson isn't all that happy about IP theft, as noted by another poster.

 

Tim Berners-Lee invented the internet on a NeXT Computer, not on a Samsung Computer, BTW.

well in Europe Samsung isn't infringing on the slide to lock patent as IIRC the German courts declared it invalid.

Due to the peculiarities of the legal systems on each side of the pond, what is infringement in one area isn't in another.

As for which computer Berners-Lee used is an irrelevancy but that's an aside.

As for the Dyson thing, no IP infringement.

Quote:
 

The move follows the decision by Dyson in October 2013 to drop apatent infringement case that it brought against Samsung in August, in which it claimed that the Korean giant had copied the steering system used in its Motion Sync cleaner from the Dyson DC37 and DC39 cleaners, which had then been on sale for two years.

Samsung was able to defend itself against Dyson’s case by presenting “prior art” - an example of the idea being used before Dyson had patented it.

 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/17/samsung-dyson-vacuum-cleaner-patent-copyright

post #279 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by singularity View Post
 

well in Europe Samsung isn't infringing on the slide to lock patent as IIRC the German courts declared it invalid.

Due to the peculiarities of the legal systems on each side of the pond, what is infringement in one area isn't in another.

As for which computer Berners-Lee used is an irrelevancy but that's an aside.

As for the Dyson thing, no IP infringement.

"Mike Sendall buys a NeXT cube for evaluation, and gives it to Tim [Berners-Lee]. Tim's prototype implementation on NeXTStep is made in the space of a few months, thanks to the qualities of the NeXTStep software development system. This prototype offers WYSIWYG browsing/authoring! Current Web browsers used in "surfing the Internet" are mere passive windows, depriving the user of the possibility to contribute. During some sessions in the CERN cafeteria, Tim and I try to find a catching name for the system. I was determined that the name should not yet again be taken from Greek mythology. Tim proposes "World-Wide Web". I like this very much, except that it is difficult to pronounce in French..." by Robert Cailliau, 2 November 1995.[28]

 

Hardly irrelevant.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2011/oct/16/tim-berners-lee-steve-jobs


Edited by tmay - 5/5/14 at 10:30am
post #280 of 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Oh, yeah, I don't think Apple needs to worry about Samsung stealing their chip designs, just curious if there is any Apple IP that can be protected here
But outside of the ARM ISA — remember these SoCs contain many packages and it's even been said that Apple does manual layouts — there is plenty of tech that ARM didn't create. For example, can others include their own "secure enclave" that mirror's how Apple created and included theirs, or is that something that is wholly Apple's design and therefore protectable?

The particular implementation of an instruction set is probably copyrighted (don't quote me on this), which is why AMD and Intel don't simply copy each other's designs even when one is behind the other (like AMD is now or Intel was back in the Pentium 4 days). There's also the possibility that Apple or another ARM licensee creates their own extensions to the ISA (like AMD did with the basic 32 bit x86 ISA), for which they could indeed get patents.

 

The term "secure enclave" itself is just a marketing term used to package the particular collection of techniques that Apple uses. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the details to say whether the techniques used by Apple are industry-standard or were invented in-house.


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 5/5/14 at 10:28am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Jury awards Apple $119.6M, Samsung $158K in damages after finding both guilty of patent infringement