Which model of the iPhone has a slide-out keyboard?
Oh look another change of direction from you, what a surprise! Oh look another straw man! The suit with those phones on it includes additional IP issues including trademark violations on the icons that those phones do potentially infringe. Not every device that Apple complained about infringed on every issue.
Maybe. We'll have to see what the court decides, if it even gets that far.
Here are some of the phones Apple has included in their complaint, and will now have to convince the court are confusingly similar to the iPhone (examples elided for brevity).
If you look closely at the Samsung things, you can see that Samsung has no idea how to copy the Roman alphabet. Whoever thought of writing an upper-case A to look like an upside-down V? If they can't copy a simple letter, how the heck can Apple win this broad suit?
You seem very sure of yourself. What do you believe the outcome of this case will be?
You mean of the massive greater case and not this skirmish? That's easy, at some point there will be a settlement, there's always a settlement. Apple almost certainly won't force Samsung to stop selling in the US, but by forcing Samsung to settle they'll acquire even more precedent behind their key IP and be able to extract significant royalties from the entire Android ecosystem.
I'm not saying that Apple will win on every single issue that they've raised but it seems that there is enough that is valid that they're going to be able to force Samsung to the table. Increasingly I think that Apple's aim here is to bolster their key UI patents and extract say 5-10$ per handset from the Android OEMs, simultaneously cutting its own prices and driving up its own market share without losing significant income.
The complicating factor is the TouchWiz/F480 from three years ago, but it seems to me the curves of the Galaxy match the 3G/3Gs more than the F480. Maybe 10% of the icons used have a hard to explain level of similarity to those of iOS, when they could easily be more different than they are.
The complicating factor is the TouchWiz/F480 from three years ago, but it seems to me the curves of the Galaxy match the 3G/3Gs more than the F480. Maybe 10% of the icons used have a hard to explain level of similarity to those of iOS, when they could easily be more different than they are.
3 years ago won't save them, the oldest of the phone design patents is from Jan 07 - in order to claim prior art on this design they'd need a model that's coming up on 5 years old.
Has liitle to do with Nokia, and a lot to do with Microsoft. At this point in time, M$ and Apple have become political allies.
It's even more complicated. For starters we don't know how much Apple ended up paying, there was never really any doubt that it was going to have to pay something, at least some of Nokia's patent portfolio was key to GSM - it was always a question of degree. Apple may have felt they had gotten the price down as low as they could.
Then there's the question of how much Android OEMs will have to pay Nokia. If Apple had beaten Nokia in court, invalidated patents or demonstrated that they weren't infringed, then Android OEMs could piggy back on that expensively fought win and get their royalties reduced. This way they're all stuck having to pay whatever they had to before, or having to fight Nokia from square one.
Finally by settling when they did Apple is able to point to some of its key IP and say that Nokia was unable to invalidate it (Apple makes this exact point in the last motion against samsung). Perhaps if it had gone on longer Nokia would have managed to invalidate the scrolling window - rubber-banding thingy - but as they didn't it's now a patent that has survived attack.
Patent fights will almost always end in a secretive settlement, for these sort of reasons.
The copying here is REALLY blatant, and repeated, and ongoing...Right down to the shelves and the specific kind of page-turn effect.
Can't agree more. It is really a blatant rip-off. Hope you are talking about the same thing, that is Apple iBook is a blatant copy of the Delicious Library application, that is on the market for the some time and it is clearly a prior art in this case.
Yet I don't think Apple done anything wrong. This kind of thing should not be patentable at all.
This is like Barry Bonds saying "I wasn't cheating, I was doing my best to compete". Yes, Samsung are competing with Apple, and they're doing it using illegal means. Duh.
Yes, Bonds was not cheating. He never failed a drug test. The blame in this cause lies squarely on Selig's shoulders, if MLB really wanted to have no performance enhancement cheating, they should've implement the testing programme long time ago.
Samsung is not doing anything special. Reusing successful ideas is there for some few thousand years and there is nothing wrong with that. What I see much more poisonous and dangerous is disturbing trend of big companies formulating vague claims and filling them at the patent office just because they can afford to pay the patent fee. This does nothing good and has no relation to "give incentive to the inventor" which was probably behind the original idea of patent law. But now it is just a disgusting caricature and needs to be abandoned.
Apple can protect themselves by building on iPhone success and innovating more rapidly, not dragging other manufacturers to the court. Speaking of Apple and iOS, what innovations you done lately ? Copying the Android Notification System and idle screen ?
Apple can protect themselves by building on iPhone success and innovating more rapidly, not dragging other manufacturers to the court. Speaking of Apple and iOS, what innovations you done lately ? Copying the Android Notification System and idle screen ?
Why should Apple be any different from other companies when it comes to using legal means to protect their IP? We could have a huge discussion about the travesty that is the modern patent system, and the way that the copyright system is being extended by stealth and all that stuff, but this is just about one lawsuit.
A long time ago Apple discovered that it's not enough to be first, it's not even enough to be better, sometimes market forces can screw even the better solution. The Apple OS was demonstrably better than DOS, heck the Amiga OS was better than either - with fully preemptive multitasking, it didn't matter.
Now you could claim that Google don't use patents to protect their core IP, and that is true, instead they use trade secrets, because all their core IP lives in closed data-centres. That's not an option for Apple though, their products are out for all the world to see, so of course they'll use the legal means available to them.
Why should Apple be any different from other companies when it comes to using legal means to protect their IP? We could have a huge discussion about the travesty that is the modern patent system, and the way that the copyright system is being extended by stealth and all that stuff, but this is just about one lawsuit.
A long time ago Apple discovered that it's not enough to be first, it's not even enough to be better, sometimes market forces can screw even the better solution. The Apple OS was demonstrably better than DOS, heck the Amiga OS was better than either - with fully preemptive multitasking, it didn't matter.
Now you could claim that Google don't use patents to protect their core IP, and that is true, instead they use trade secrets, because all their core IP lives in closed data-centres. That's not an option for Apple though, their products are out for all the world to see, so of course they'll use the legal means available to them.
Fair enough, got your argument, and agree to some extent, you need to adapt to the environment and use same techniques as your competition.
But they have the responsibility of being a big player, they help to form the environment. And Apple definitely have a bad impact there. They are not "middle of the pack" they are one of leaders in claiming vague and absurd generic patents, they almost become a patent troll.
Yes they still design great product that are pleasure to use for end users, but their impact in corporate world is very negative. US will eventually learn that this is not sustainable as it will damage the competitiveness of the economy, but it might be too late.
China and other countries doesn't make same sort of mistake, and while they still might be ridiculed as "copycats" for the time being, it is not wise to ignore the lots of homegrown IP created in these countries.
Comments
When a car maker becomes the first maker to introduce exclusively 4 cylinder engines ( and others start doing the same), is that considered "copying"?
Speaking of cars -
- is this competition or copying ? BTW, this is Lifan 320
or
- this is not a Honda CR-V - it is Laibao SR-V
or this-
- this is not Smart but Houyun
Samsung is pretty sad. I was going to buy a Samsung TV before all this went down, but no way now. The company is devoid of any innovation.
The Galaxy 7" was a POS. Still can't believe they dumped that crap on the market
Yeah, but I hear they make pretty good photocopy machines. They even have an option to make your copies extra-lawsuit prone.
Which model of the iPhone has a slide-out keyboard?
Oh look another change of direction from you, what a surprise! Oh look another straw man! The suit with those phones on it includes additional IP issues including trademark violations on the icons that those phones do potentially infringe. Not every device that Apple complained about infringed on every issue.
Next red heriring?
Which people? I'm an Apple fan and everyone loves me and thinks very highly of me.
I'll second that!
I love the commenters in this forum.
Maybe. We'll have to see what the court decides, if it even gets that far.
Here are some of the phones Apple has included in their complaint, and will now have to convince the court are confusingly similar to the iPhone (examples elided for brevity).
If you look closely at the Samsung things, you can see that Samsung has no idea how to copy the Roman alphabet. Whoever thought of writing an upper-case A to look like an upside-down V? If they can't copy a simple letter, how the heck can Apple win this broad suit?
You seem very sure of yourself. What do you believe the outcome of this case will be?
You mean of the massive greater case and not this skirmish? That's easy, at some point there will be a settlement, there's always a settlement. Apple almost certainly won't force Samsung to stop selling in the US, but by forcing Samsung to settle they'll acquire even more precedent behind their key IP and be able to extract significant royalties from the entire Android ecosystem.
I'm not saying that Apple will win on every single issue that they've raised but it seems that there is enough that is valid that they're going to be able to force Samsung to the table. Increasingly I think that Apple's aim here is to bolster their key UI patents and extract say 5-10$ per handset from the Android OEMs, simultaneously cutting its own prices and driving up its own market share without losing significant income.
http://www.axess.com/twilight/consol.../advantag.html
The complicating factor is the TouchWiz/F480 from three years ago, but it seems to me the curves of the Galaxy match the 3G/3Gs more than the F480. Maybe 10% of the icons used have a hard to explain level of similarity to those of iOS, when they could easily be more different than they are.
The complicating factor is the TouchWiz/F480 from three years ago, but it seems to me the curves of the Galaxy match the 3G/3Gs more than the F480. Maybe 10% of the icons used have a hard to explain level of similarity to those of iOS, when they could easily be more different than they are.
3 years ago won't save them, the oldest of the phone design patents is from Jan 07 - in order to claim prior art on this design they'd need a model that's coming up on 5 years old.
It may be worth noting that while we have to wait until August to see how Apple's suit against HTC turns out, with Nokia Apple settled by paying Nokia an undisclosed sum, settling all patent litigation between them. Why would Apple pay if they felt that had a chance at prevailing?
Has liitle to do with Nokia, and a lot to do with Microsoft. At this point in time, M$ and Apple have become political allies.
Has liitle to do with Nokia, and a lot to do with Microsoft. At this point in time, M$ and Apple have become political allies.
It's even more complicated. For starters we don't know how much Apple ended up paying, there was never really any doubt that it was going to have to pay something, at least some of Nokia's patent portfolio was key to GSM - it was always a question of degree. Apple may have felt they had gotten the price down as low as they could.
Then there's the question of how much Android OEMs will have to pay Nokia. If Apple had beaten Nokia in court, invalidated patents or demonstrated that they weren't infringed, then Android OEMs could piggy back on that expensively fought win and get their royalties reduced. This way they're all stuck having to pay whatever they had to before, or having to fight Nokia from square one.
Finally by settling when they did Apple is able to point to some of its key IP and say that Nokia was unable to invalidate it (Apple makes this exact point in the last motion against samsung). Perhaps if it had gone on longer Nokia would have managed to invalidate the scrolling window - rubber-banding thingy - but as they didn't it's now a patent that has survived attack.
Patent fights will almost always end in a secretive settlement, for these sort of reasons.
The copying here is REALLY blatant, and repeated, and ongoing...Right down to the shelves and the specific kind of page-turn effect.
Can't agree more. It is really a blatant rip-off. Hope you are talking about the same thing, that is Apple iBook is a blatant copy of the Delicious Library application, that is on the market for the some time and it is clearly a prior art in this case.
Yet I don't think Apple done anything wrong. This kind of thing should not be patentable at all.
This is like Barry Bonds saying "I wasn't cheating, I was doing my best to compete". Yes, Samsung are competing with Apple, and they're doing it using illegal means. Duh.
Yes, Bonds was not cheating. He never failed a drug test. The blame in this cause lies squarely on Selig's shoulders, if MLB really wanted to have no performance enhancement cheating, they should've implement the testing programme long time ago.
Samsung is not doing anything special. Reusing successful ideas is there for some few thousand years and there is nothing wrong with that. What I see much more poisonous and dangerous is disturbing trend of big companies formulating vague claims and filling them at the patent office just because they can afford to pay the patent fee. This does nothing good and has no relation to "give incentive to the inventor" which was probably behind the original idea of patent law. But now it is just a disgusting caricature and needs to be abandoned.
Apple can protect themselves by building on iPhone success and innovating more rapidly, not dragging other manufacturers to the court. Speaking of Apple and iOS, what innovations you done lately ? Copying the Android Notification System and idle screen ?
Apple can protect themselves by building on iPhone success and innovating more rapidly, not dragging other manufacturers to the court. Speaking of Apple and iOS, what innovations you done lately ? Copying the Android Notification System and idle screen ?
Why should Apple be any different from other companies when it comes to using legal means to protect their IP? We could have a huge discussion about the travesty that is the modern patent system, and the way that the copyright system is being extended by stealth and all that stuff, but this is just about one lawsuit.
A long time ago Apple discovered that it's not enough to be first, it's not even enough to be better, sometimes market forces can screw even the better solution. The Apple OS was demonstrably better than DOS, heck the Amiga OS was better than either - with fully preemptive multitasking, it didn't matter.
Now you could claim that Google don't use patents to protect their core IP, and that is true, instead they use trade secrets, because all their core IP lives in closed data-centres. That's not an option for Apple though, their products are out for all the world to see, so of course they'll use the legal means available to them.
Why should Apple be any different from other companies when it comes to using legal means to protect their IP? We could have a huge discussion about the travesty that is the modern patent system, and the way that the copyright system is being extended by stealth and all that stuff, but this is just about one lawsuit.
A long time ago Apple discovered that it's not enough to be first, it's not even enough to be better, sometimes market forces can screw even the better solution. The Apple OS was demonstrably better than DOS, heck the Amiga OS was better than either - with fully preemptive multitasking, it didn't matter.
Now you could claim that Google don't use patents to protect their core IP, and that is true, instead they use trade secrets, because all their core IP lives in closed data-centres. That's not an option for Apple though, their products are out for all the world to see, so of course they'll use the legal means available to them.
Fair enough, got your argument, and agree to some extent, you need to adapt to the environment and use same techniques as your competition.
But they have the responsibility of being a big player, they help to form the environment. And Apple definitely have a bad impact there. They are not "middle of the pack" they are one of leaders in claiming vague and absurd generic patents, they almost become a patent troll.
Yes they still design great product that are pleasure to use for end users, but their impact in corporate world is very negative. US will eventually learn that this is not sustainable as it will damage the competitiveness of the economy, but it might be too late.
China and other countries doesn't make same sort of mistake, and while they still might be ridiculed as "copycats" for the time being, it is not wise to ignore the lots of homegrown IP created in these countries.