Nothing. It is all about advantage. Apple filed in California where its home is located. It could have filed else place though. Samsung thinks it has a better shot in those other places. Foreign Courts do strange things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
If Apple filed in the U.S. District Court of Northern California what good does Samsung filing in S. Korea, Germany and Japan in regards to the original lawsuit?
Good point, it represents an American food product that is totally unfamiliar in Asia. Asia has recently catapulted itself into a business, the production of technology for consumers, with which Asian society is totally unfamiliar. All they really understand is hard work.
Look at it this way. If you suddenly found that your only way to earn a living was opening a noodle restaurant, where would you look to find out how to do it? Japanese, Chinese and Korean noodle restaurants of course. At first they wouldn't care, because who wants to buy noodles from a popcorn stand? But when the business gets big enough, and it is obvious your noodle restaurant looks exactly like a particular Korean noodle restaurant, its owner might start to complain.
When the case comes to court, it's because the noodle restaurant owner has an alternative supplier of popcorn. I strongly suspect that this case started the moment Apple secured fall-back suppliers of the chips, displays etc. it currently gets from Samsung.
They'll end up making-up by cross-licensing their patents.
Or, maybe, this will encourage Apple to see other vendors for their parts and Samsung will lose big time. Forget what happens with the patents. Apple is in the driver's seat with this one. The only big effect I see on Apple's bottom line is that this might encourage them to bid higher on the Nortel patents.
Or, maybe, this will encourage Apple to see other vendors for their parts and Samsung will lose big time. Forget what happens with the patents. Apple is in the driver's seat with this one. The only big effect I see on Apple's bottom line is that this might encourage them to bid higher on the Nortel patents.
Last year Apple accounted for what? 5-10% of the revenue from samsung? Will it hurt if Apple leaves? Yes. Will Apple lose "Big time" because of that? Not really. Also remember that Apple is having Serious issue with backlog right now, they're struggling to meet demand as it is. Do you really think they'll drop a supplier and face more shortages?
Not to mention that Apple and Samsung most likely have a multi-year contract for supplies because Apple likes signing those to get a cheaper volume price (which allows them to have such outstanding margins on sales)
To be precise, those Samsung execs need to grow pairs..
You're right you know, Samsung is one of the largest tech companies in the world, they even supply components to Apple, so basically they have enough resources and power to make at least a great and innovative product. So why can't they? Instead, why did they copy Apple's iPhone? Because the execs can't grow a pair, errr sorry, pairs..
Apple wasn't the first one out with a touchscreen smartphone that uses the common form factor today. See LG's Prada. Samsung also had its own offering out earlier.
I don't see anyone coming out as a huge winner in this one. Any judge reviewing this complaint will see it for what it is. Far-reaching patent claims have no merit. I believe most of Apple's frivolous patent claims against HTC were summarily dismissed by the judge. Just 5 left out of the 20-30 patents they got sued over.
Apple wasn't the first one out with a touchscreen smartphone that uses the common form factor today. See LG's Prada. Samsung also had its own offering out earlier.
I don't see anyone coming out as a huge winner in this one. Any judge reviewing this complaint will see it for what it is. Far-reaching patent claims have no merit. I believe most of Apple's frivolous patent claims against HTC were summarily dismissed by the judge. Just 5 left out of the 20-30 patents they got sued over.
I guess we'll see what happens. It's interesting, though, that Windows 7 Mobile and Palm OS are very different from iOS, while the Android systems of Samsung, HTC and Motorola are very close copies. It's not just a question of using a touchscreen.
I guess we'll see what happens. It's interesting, though, that Windows 7 Mobile and Palm OS are very different from iOS, while the Android systems of Samsung, HTC and Motorola are very close copies. It's not just a question of using a touchscreen.
Apple wasn't the first one out with a touchscreen smartphone that uses the common form factor today. See LG's Prada. Samsung also had its own offering out earlier.
I don't see anyone coming out as a huge winner in this one. Any judge reviewing this complaint will see it for what it is. Far-reaching patent claims have no merit. I believe most of Apple's frivolous patent claims against HTC were summarily dismissed by the judge. Just 5 left out of the 20-30 patents they got sued over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth
I guess we'll see what happens. It's interesting, though, that Windows 7 Mobile and Palm OS are very different from iOS, while the Android systems of Samsung, HTC and Motorola are very close copies. It's not just a question of using a touchscreen.
I think Apple's strongest argument centers upon the exterior form factor. But then again, Samsung's legal defense team is going to have decades of prior art to go off of. That complaint won't take long for any judge worth half his salt to decide to toss out for failure to state a complaint upon which a relief can be granted.
And you're not very clear on how Android is a ripoff of Apple. If you're referring to the fact that a "grid of apps" constitutes a ripoff of Apple's iPhone/iPad OS...well...I believe the truth of that claim is self-evident.
Doing well in IP law isn't about pointing fingers at every single competitor past and present for having a UI or physical form factor that's similar to yours. I suppose we should reform patent law not to discourage frivolous lawsuits like the ones we're now witnessing, but to allow a company like Apple to retroactively sue the likes of Palm, HP, and Dell who've had similar app layouts in their pocket PCs and PDAs dating back to the 1990s and earlier 2000s.
I really think that Palm. Samsung, Apple, and LG all mimicked the Newton in it's design. They should all pay the company that developed the Newton. Oh, wait, I think that was Apple. Well there we have it!
Also, in this economy, with all the money Apple has, why not build a couple of factories to have their won supply chain? I'm sure a few states desperate for jobs would cut them a sweet deal. They could alos build in Brazil as well. With control over their won supply chain, Apple wouldn't be instantly mimicked by their suppliers, and the quality couldn't get any lower than it is with asian labor!
I don't agree with Apple suing over look and feel. Copy cats are to always be expected. It's the way the world has worked since the dawn of time. You keep it classy and continue innovating. Not this rubbish.
You keep it classy and continue innovating. Not this rubbish.
Why do people assume that you can?t sue someone for patent and trademarks infringements and continue to innovate. It?s not like their engineers are moonlighting as their lawyers.
I really think that Palm. Samsung, Apple, and LG all mimicked the Newton in it's design. They should all pay the company that developed the Newton. Oh, wait, I think that was Apple. Well there we have it!
Also, in this economy, with all the money Apple has, why not build a couple of factories to have their won supply chain? I'm sure a few states desperate for jobs would cut them a sweet deal. They could alos build in Brazil as well. With control over their won supply chain, Apple wouldn't be instantly mimicked by their suppliers, and the quality couldn't get any lower than it is with asian labor!
This post is rife with so many assumptions. Makes me wonder whether all Apple fans like to pretend they're corporate lawyers and executives inside.
Newton was developed in the 1980s. Are you suggesting software patents should last 30 years? What if I were to patent the automobile steering wheel? Would you be ok with me suing every single automobile manufacturer in existence for not patenting something that's become commonplace for a century?
Also I hope you do realize two things. First, building flash memory and LCD screens isn't a matter of building a few factories. You need the technological know-how and the designs. Apple has neither for developing flash memory or screens. It COULD acquire a flash memory company or two, but that would be prohibitively expensive and would distract from Apple's core areas of focus. The same goes for LCD technology. Apple would wind up paying billions in R&D to develop its own core technologies--and that's assuming it doesn't trample on someone else's display tech. And cheap Asian labor isn't the reason some products are of lower quality than of others. All your Macs and iPhones are built in China but are arguably of excellent quality. It's all about quality control and smart engineering. I'm no Apple fanboy or hater, but I myself recognize excellent engineering in the iPhone 4 and the Macbook Pro.
I'm going to guess you're not a business management major. Amirite?
I think Apple's strongest argument centers upon the exterior form factor. But then again, Samsung's legal defense team is going to have decades of prior art to go off of. That complaint won't take long for any judge worth half his salt to decide to toss out for failure to state a complaint upon which a relief can be granted.
And you're not very clear on how Android is a ripoff of Apple. If you're referring to the fact that a "grid of apps" constitutes a ripoff of Apple's iPhone/iPad OS...well...I believe the truth of that claim is self-evident.
Doing well in IP law isn't about pointing fingers at every single competitor past and present for having a UI or physical form factor that's similar to yours. I suppose we should reform patent law not to discourage frivolous lawsuits like the ones we're now witnessing, but to allow a company like Apple to retroactively sue the likes of Palm, HP, and Dell who've had similar app layouts in their pocket PCs and PDAs dating back to the 1990s and earlier 2000s.
Wait, where have I seen that grid before? Hello Palm picture poster Jack99, 1883 wants it's grid back...
And we can keep going back from there, via Xerox PARC, all the way to 1964 with Englebart's GUI pioneering work in the Stanford Research Institute, Augmentation Research Center.
Hint: Leave off with the weak attempts at attributing history, you missed by over three decades. You are a decade early on the Newton too, and you missed the opportunity to point out that Palm actually made it market with the Palm Pilot before Apple did with the Newton, by a little more than a year.
That poor grasp of tech history bodes very poorly for your hope at engaging successfully in an IP discussion.
I'm going to guess you're not an engineer. Amirite? Not to mention the world needs fewer business majors.
Wait, where have I seen that grid before? Hello Palm picture poster Jack99, 1883 wants it's grid back...
And we can keep going back from there, via Xerox PARC, all the way to 1964 with Englebart's GUI pioneering work in the Stanford Research Institute, Augmentation Research Center.
Hint: Leave off with the weak attempts at attributing history, you missed by over three decades. You are a decade early on the Newton too, and you missed the opportunity to point out that Palm actually made it market with the Palm Pilot before Apple did with the Newton, by a little more than a year.
That poor grasp of tech history bodes very poorly for your hope at engaging successfully in an IP discussion.
I'm going to guess you're not an engineer. Amirite? Not to mention the world needs fewer business majors.
Ummm...come again?
All you did was further prove my point. I'm not here to show off my knowledge of software design history or write a thesis report on it. In other words, you missed my main point completely. Please reread my prior posts for reference.
My point all along has been that this madness associated with trying to claim originality with software patents when the prior art reaches back as far as a half a century as you yourself even proved needs to come to a stop. That has been my thesis so far. Yet, there are still others who don't seem to think so!
All in all, if my reading of your comment is correct, you and I may actually share the same fundamental belief. The patent system needs overhaul, and now's a good time as ever for our policymakers and yes, even our judiciary system to consider this problem.
I'm impressed. You have pretty robust grasp of tech history. All your posts reveal is that facts alone are just that. Facts.
Good point, it represents an American food product that is totally unfamiliar in Asia. Asia has recently catapulted itself into a business, the production of technology for consumers, with which Asian society is totally unfamiliar. All they really understand is hard work.
Look at it this way. If you suddenly found that your only way to earn a living was opening a noodle restaurant, where would you look to find out how to do it? Japanese, Chinese and Korean noodle restaurants of course. At first they wouldn't care, because who wants to buy noodles from a popcorn stand? But when the business gets big enough, and it is obvious your noodle restaurant looks exactly like a particular Korean noodle restaurant, its owner might start to complain.
When the case comes to court, it's because the noodle restaurant owner has an alternative supplier of popcorn. I strongly suspect that this case started the moment Apple secured fall-back suppliers of the chips, displays etc. it currently gets from Samsung.
Your reading into it too much.
People eat popcorn when they see drama.
I see drama unfolding before me, thus the popcorn.
All you did was further prove my point. I'm not here to show off my knowledge of software design history or write a thesis report on it. In other words, you missed my main point completely. Please reread my prior posts for reference.
My point all along has been that this madness associated with trying to claim originality with software patents when the prior art reaches back as far as a half a century as you yourself even proved needs to come to a stop. That has been my thesis so far. Yet, there are still others who don't seem to think so!
All in all, if my reading of your comment is correct, you and I may actually share the same fundamental belief. The patent system needs overhaul, and now's a good time as ever for our policymakers and yes, even our judiciary system to consider this problem.
I'm impressed. You have pretty robust grasp of tech history. All your posts reveal is that facts alone are just that. Facts.
It's not madness with the patent concept, it's an exceptionally poor patent approval process. A better process would yield a far superior patent system. And your point on needing to redo the patent system was very poorly put. So poorly that your Palm pic smacked of typical Apple-basher flavor rather than patent dislike flavor.
As for facts, yep that's all they are. It's handy knowing the right facts though.
This time, instead of Germany, Japan and Korea, its in the US.
Quote:
Samsung Electronics Co., the second-largest maker of mobile phones, broadened its patent- infringement dispute with Apple Inc. (AAPL) by suing the iPhone creator in the U.S. a week after making claims in Asia and Europe.
Apple is infringing 10 patents related to mobile phones, Samsung said in a lawsuit yesterday in federal court in San Jose, California. The Suwon, South Korea-based company, which sells the Galaxy smartphone and tablet, claims Apple is using Samsung?s inventions without paying.
The lawsuit intensifies a legal dispute that began when Cupertino, California-based Apple sued Samsung earlier this month, claiming the Galaxy products ?slavishly? copied iPad and iPhone technology and design. Samsung, which is also a supplier of some Apple chips, retaliated last week with lawsuits in Seoul, Tokyo and Mannheim, Germany.
In the U.S. complaint, Samsung accuses Apple of violating patents that ?relate to fundamental innovations that increase mobile device reliability, efficiency, and quality, and improve user interface in mobile handsets and other products.?
The patented technology includes ways that a phone allows calls and Internet surfing at the same time; improvements in how text messages and attachments are sent; reductions in interference among mobile devices; and increases in the capacity of mobile networks, according to the complaint
Samsung, which received the second-highest number of U.S. patents last year after International Business Machines Corp., is seeking an order to prevent further use of its innovations by Apple, plus cash compensation.
Apple Complaint
?Apple continues to violate Samsung?s patent rights by using these patented technologies without a license,? Samsung said in the lawsuit.
Apple?s April 15 complaint claims Samsung is infringing seven patents related to the way Galaxy devices understand user gestures, including selecting, scrolling, pinching and zooming. Samsung is also copying three patents on the design, including the flat black face of the iPhone and iPad, according to Apple.
The Galaxy phones and tablet, which use Google Inc. (GOOG)?s Android software, were specifically designed to copy Apple products, Apple claims.
Apple is seeking a court order to block further use of its patents and trademarks, along with cash compensation and ?reasonable funds for future corrective advertising.?
Samsung?s mobile-phone business ?crossed the line,? Tim Cook, Apple?s chief operating officer, said last week after the company reported profit that almost doubled from a year ago.
The case is Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 11cv2079, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose).
Comments
If Apple filed in the U.S. District Court of Northern California what good does Samsung filing in S. Korea, Germany and Japan in regards to the original lawsuit?
I have to believe Apple is vigorously pursuing and putting in place alternatives to all Samsung parts currently supplied to Apple.
Past-perfect tense: had vigorously pursued...
Plan-B would have already been sorted out prior to pushing the lawsuit button.
Popcorn?
Good point, it represents an American food product that is totally unfamiliar in Asia. Asia has recently catapulted itself into a business, the production of technology for consumers, with which Asian society is totally unfamiliar. All they really understand is hard work.
Look at it this way. If you suddenly found that your only way to earn a living was opening a noodle restaurant, where would you look to find out how to do it? Japanese, Chinese and Korean noodle restaurants of course. At first they wouldn't care, because who wants to buy noodles from a popcorn stand? But when the business gets big enough, and it is obvious your noodle restaurant looks exactly like a particular Korean noodle restaurant, its owner might start to complain.
When the case comes to court, it's because the noodle restaurant owner has an alternative supplier of popcorn. I strongly suspect that this case started the moment Apple secured fall-back suppliers of the chips, displays etc. it currently gets from Samsung.
They'll end up making-up by cross-licensing their patents.
The Clash of the Titans!
They'll end up making-up by cross-licensing their patents.
Or, maybe, this will encourage Apple to see other vendors for their parts and Samsung will lose big time. Forget what happens with the patents. Apple is in the driver's seat with this one. The only big effect I see on Apple's bottom line is that this might encourage them to bid higher on the Nortel patents.
Or, maybe, this will encourage Apple to see other vendors for their parts and Samsung will lose big time. Forget what happens with the patents. Apple is in the driver's seat with this one. The only big effect I see on Apple's bottom line is that this might encourage them to bid higher on the Nortel patents.
Last year Apple accounted for what? 5-10% of the revenue from samsung? Will it hurt if Apple leaves? Yes. Will Apple lose "Big time" because of that? Not really. Also remember that Apple is having Serious issue with backlog right now, they're struggling to meet demand as it is. Do you really think they'll drop a supplier and face more shortages?
Not to mention that Apple and Samsung most likely have a multi-year contract for supplies because Apple likes signing those to get a cheaper volume price (which allows them to have such outstanding margins on sales)
To be precise, those Samsung execs need to grow pairs..
You're right you know, Samsung is one of the largest tech companies in the world, they even supply components to Apple, so basically they have enough resources and power to make at least a great and innovative product. So why can't they? Instead, why did they copy Apple's iPhone? Because the execs can't grow a pair, errr sorry, pairs..
Apple wasn't the first one out with a touchscreen smartphone that uses the common form factor today. See LG's Prada. Samsung also had its own offering out earlier.
I don't see anyone coming out as a huge winner in this one. Any judge reviewing this complaint will see it for what it is. Far-reaching patent claims have no merit. I believe most of Apple's frivolous patent claims against HTC were summarily dismissed by the judge. Just 5 left out of the 20-30 patents they got sued over.
Apple wasn't the first one out with a touchscreen smartphone that uses the common form factor today. See LG's Prada. Samsung also had its own offering out earlier.
I don't see anyone coming out as a huge winner in this one. Any judge reviewing this complaint will see it for what it is. Far-reaching patent claims have no merit. I believe most of Apple's frivolous patent claims against HTC were summarily dismissed by the judge. Just 5 left out of the 20-30 patents they got sued over.
I guess we'll see what happens. It's interesting, though, that Windows 7 Mobile and Palm OS are very different from iOS, while the Android systems of Samsung, HTC and Motorola are very close copies. It's not just a question of using a touchscreen.
I guess we'll see what happens. It's interesting, though, that Windows 7 Mobile and Palm OS are very different from iOS, while the Android systems of Samsung, HTC and Motorola are very close copies. It's not just a question of using a touchscreen.
Excellent point.
Apple wasn't the first one out with a touchscreen smartphone that uses the common form factor today. See LG's Prada. Samsung also had its own offering out earlier.
I don't see anyone coming out as a huge winner in this one. Any judge reviewing this complaint will see it for what it is. Far-reaching patent claims have no merit. I believe most of Apple's frivolous patent claims against HTC were summarily dismissed by the judge. Just 5 left out of the 20-30 patents they got sued over.
I guess we'll see what happens. It's interesting, though, that Windows 7 Mobile and Palm OS are very different from iOS, while the Android systems of Samsung, HTC and Motorola are very close copies. It's not just a question of using a touchscreen.
I think Apple's strongest argument centers upon the exterior form factor. But then again, Samsung's legal defense team is going to have decades of prior art to go off of. That complaint won't take long for any judge worth half his salt to decide to toss out for failure to state a complaint upon which a relief can be granted.
And you're not very clear on how Android is a ripoff of Apple. If you're referring to the fact that a "grid of apps" constitutes a ripoff of Apple's iPhone/iPad OS...well...I believe the truth of that claim is self-evident.
Doing well in IP law isn't about pointing fingers at every single competitor past and present for having a UI or physical form factor that's similar to yours. I suppose we should reform patent law not to discourage frivolous lawsuits like the ones we're now witnessing, but to allow a company like Apple to retroactively sue the likes of Palm, HP, and Dell who've had similar app layouts in their pocket PCs and PDAs dating back to the 1990s and earlier 2000s.
Also, in this economy, with all the money Apple has, why not build a couple of factories to have their won supply chain? I'm sure a few states desperate for jobs would cut them a sweet deal. They could alos build in Brazil as well. With control over their won supply chain, Apple wouldn't be instantly mimicked by their suppliers, and the quality couldn't get any lower than it is with asian labor!
You keep it classy and continue innovating. Not this rubbish.
Why do people assume that you can?t sue someone for patent and trademarks infringements and continue to innovate. It?s not like their engineers are moonlighting as their lawyers.
I really think that Palm. Samsung, Apple, and LG all mimicked the Newton in it's design. They should all pay the company that developed the Newton. Oh, wait, I think that was Apple. Well there we have it!
Also, in this economy, with all the money Apple has, why not build a couple of factories to have their won supply chain? I'm sure a few states desperate for jobs would cut them a sweet deal. They could alos build in Brazil as well. With control over their won supply chain, Apple wouldn't be instantly mimicked by their suppliers, and the quality couldn't get any lower than it is with asian labor!
This post is rife with so many assumptions. Makes me wonder whether all Apple fans like to pretend they're corporate lawyers and executives inside.
Newton was developed in the 1980s. Are you suggesting software patents should last 30 years? What if I were to patent the automobile steering wheel? Would you be ok with me suing every single automobile manufacturer in existence for not patenting something that's become commonplace for a century?
Also I hope you do realize two things. First, building flash memory and LCD screens isn't a matter of building a few factories. You need the technological know-how and the designs. Apple has neither for developing flash memory or screens. It COULD acquire a flash memory company or two, but that would be prohibitively expensive and would distract from Apple's core areas of focus. The same goes for LCD technology. Apple would wind up paying billions in R&D to develop its own core technologies--and that's assuming it doesn't trample on someone else's display tech. And cheap Asian labor isn't the reason some products are of lower quality than of others. All your Macs and iPhones are built in China but are arguably of excellent quality. It's all about quality control and smart engineering. I'm no Apple fanboy or hater, but I myself recognize excellent engineering in the iPhone 4 and the Macbook Pro.
I'm going to guess you're not a business management major. Amirite?
I think Apple's strongest argument centers upon the exterior form factor. But then again, Samsung's legal defense team is going to have decades of prior art to go off of. That complaint won't take long for any judge worth half his salt to decide to toss out for failure to state a complaint upon which a relief can be granted.
And you're not very clear on how Android is a ripoff of Apple. If you're referring to the fact that a "grid of apps" constitutes a ripoff of Apple's iPhone/iPad OS...well...I believe the truth of that claim is self-evident.
Doing well in IP law isn't about pointing fingers at every single competitor past and present for having a UI or physical form factor that's similar to yours. I suppose we should reform patent law not to discourage frivolous lawsuits like the ones we're now witnessing, but to allow a company like Apple to retroactively sue the likes of Palm, HP, and Dell who've had similar app layouts in their pocket PCs and PDAs dating back to the 1990s and earlier 2000s.
Wait, where have I seen that grid before? Hello Palm picture poster Jack99, 1883 wants it's grid back...
And we can keep going back from there, via Xerox PARC, all the way to 1964 with Englebart's GUI pioneering work in the Stanford Research Institute, Augmentation Research Center.
Hint: Leave off with the weak attempts at attributing history, you missed by over three decades. You are a decade early on the Newton too, and you missed the opportunity to point out that Palm actually made it market with the Palm Pilot before Apple did with the Newton, by a little more than a year.
That poor grasp of tech history bodes very poorly for your hope at engaging successfully in an IP discussion.
I'm going to guess you're not an engineer. Amirite? Not to mention the world needs fewer business majors.
Wait, where have I seen that grid before? Hello Palm picture poster Jack99, 1883 wants it's grid back...
And we can keep going back from there, via Xerox PARC, all the way to 1964 with Englebart's GUI pioneering work in the Stanford Research Institute, Augmentation Research Center.
Hint: Leave off with the weak attempts at attributing history, you missed by over three decades. You are a decade early on the Newton too, and you missed the opportunity to point out that Palm actually made it market with the Palm Pilot before Apple did with the Newton, by a little more than a year.
That poor grasp of tech history bodes very poorly for your hope at engaging successfully in an IP discussion.
I'm going to guess you're not an engineer. Amirite? Not to mention the world needs fewer business majors.
Ummm...come again?
All you did was further prove my point. I'm not here to show off my knowledge of software design history or write a thesis report on it. In other words, you missed my main point completely. Please reread my prior posts for reference.
My point all along has been that this madness associated with trying to claim originality with software patents when the prior art reaches back as far as a half a century as you yourself even proved needs to come to a stop. That has been my thesis so far. Yet, there are still others who don't seem to think so!
All in all, if my reading of your comment is correct, you and I may actually share the same fundamental belief. The patent system needs overhaul, and now's a good time as ever for our policymakers and yes, even our judiciary system to consider this problem.
I'm impressed. You have pretty robust grasp of tech history. All your posts reveal is that facts alone are just that. Facts.
Popcorn?
Good point, it represents an American food product that is totally unfamiliar in Asia. Asia has recently catapulted itself into a business, the production of technology for consumers, with which Asian society is totally unfamiliar. All they really understand is hard work.
Look at it this way. If you suddenly found that your only way to earn a living was opening a noodle restaurant, where would you look to find out how to do it? Japanese, Chinese and Korean noodle restaurants of course. At first they wouldn't care, because who wants to buy noodles from a popcorn stand? But when the business gets big enough, and it is obvious your noodle restaurant looks exactly like a particular Korean noodle restaurant, its owner might start to complain.
When the case comes to court, it's because the noodle restaurant owner has an alternative supplier of popcorn. I strongly suspect that this case started the moment Apple secured fall-back suppliers of the chips, displays etc. it currently gets from Samsung.
Your reading into it too much.
People eat popcorn when they see drama.
I see drama unfolding before me, thus the popcorn.
Having to explain this is making me
Ummm...come again?
All you did was further prove my point. I'm not here to show off my knowledge of software design history or write a thesis report on it. In other words, you missed my main point completely. Please reread my prior posts for reference.
My point all along has been that this madness associated with trying to claim originality with software patents when the prior art reaches back as far as a half a century as you yourself even proved needs to come to a stop. That has been my thesis so far. Yet, there are still others who don't seem to think so!
All in all, if my reading of your comment is correct, you and I may actually share the same fundamental belief. The patent system needs overhaul, and now's a good time as ever for our policymakers and yes, even our judiciary system to consider this problem.
I'm impressed. You have pretty robust grasp of tech history. All your posts reveal is that facts alone are just that. Facts.
It's not madness with the patent concept, it's an exceptionally poor patent approval process. A better process would yield a far superior patent system. And your point on needing to redo the patent system was very poorly put. So poorly that your Palm pic smacked of typical Apple-basher flavor rather than patent dislike flavor.
As for facts, yep that's all they are. It's handy knowing the right facts though.
This time, instead of Germany, Japan and Korea, its in the US.
Samsung Electronics Co., the second-largest maker of mobile phones, broadened its patent- infringement dispute with Apple Inc. (AAPL) by suing the iPhone creator in the U.S. a week after making claims in Asia and Europe.
Apple is infringing 10 patents related to mobile phones, Samsung said in a lawsuit yesterday in federal court in San Jose, California. The Suwon, South Korea-based company, which sells the Galaxy smartphone and tablet, claims Apple is using Samsung?s inventions without paying.
The lawsuit intensifies a legal dispute that began when Cupertino, California-based Apple sued Samsung earlier this month, claiming the Galaxy products ?slavishly? copied iPad and iPhone technology and design. Samsung, which is also a supplier of some Apple chips, retaliated last week with lawsuits in Seoul, Tokyo and Mannheim, Germany.
In the U.S. complaint, Samsung accuses Apple of violating patents that ?relate to fundamental innovations that increase mobile device reliability, efficiency, and quality, and improve user interface in mobile handsets and other products.?
The patented technology includes ways that a phone allows calls and Internet surfing at the same time; improvements in how text messages and attachments are sent; reductions in interference among mobile devices; and increases in the capacity of mobile networks, according to the complaint
Samsung, which received the second-highest number of U.S. patents last year after International Business Machines Corp., is seeking an order to prevent further use of its innovations by Apple, plus cash compensation.
Apple Complaint
?Apple continues to violate Samsung?s patent rights by using these patented technologies without a license,? Samsung said in the lawsuit.
Apple?s April 15 complaint claims Samsung is infringing seven patents related to the way Galaxy devices understand user gestures, including selecting, scrolling, pinching and zooming. Samsung is also copying three patents on the design, including the flat black face of the iPhone and iPad, according to Apple.
The Galaxy phones and tablet, which use Google Inc. (GOOG)?s Android software, were specifically designed to copy Apple products, Apple claims.
Apple is seeking a court order to block further use of its patents and trademarks, along with cash compensation and ?reasonable funds for future corrective advertising.?
Samsung?s mobile-phone business ?crossed the line,? Tim Cook, Apple?s chief operating officer, said last week after the company reported profit that almost doubled from a year ago.
The case is Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 11cv2079, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose).