Samsung have 40,000 patents in the US alone, they love patents - just not these patents apparently. As for your link, only a complete freetard thinks that pharmaceutical firms would continue to invest billions in drug discovery without patents.
Oh great, you are one of those "all patents are evil and companies should copy to their hearts' content and let the market decide" zealots. That crap doesn't fly with me. No company should get a huge discount in R&D at another company's expense which I think is the case with Samsung.
Ok so the only way for you to say you don't agree with the article, is to claim Samsung is as stupid as Apple, and that greedy pharmaceutical firms are right to patent HIV treatment for exemple ? Wow, just wow.
So, if I follow you, they should sue Motorola (Xoom), Acer (A500), Samsung (Galaxy Tab 10.1), Asus (Transformer), HP (TouchPad), etc, just because they are 10 inch tablets with a black bezel ?
No. You're not following very well. If you think a judge in Australia, and a judge in the U.S. made rulings against samsung for having a 10" tablet with a black bezel you're crazy.
Oh great, you are one of those "all patents are evil and companies should copy to their hearts' content and let the market decide" zealots. That crap doesn't fly with me. No company should get a huge discount in R&D at another company's expense which I think is the case with Samsung.
Ok, by your statement, you just confirm you didn't read the article. So pathetic.
No. You're not following very well. If you think a judge in Australia, and a judge in the U.S. made rulings against samsung for having a 10" tablet with a black bezel you're crazy.
But that's what the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is
There is no 500 ways of designing a 10 inch tablet.
"In practically all industries, this money is made from selling products and services relating to or incorporating the innovation. Patents do not sell products and are, for the most part, granted long after the related product is so old it is obsolete and no longer generating money.
If companies did not innovate, they would lose the ability to sell products, and therefore lose the ability to make money. This is much more relevant than the ability to patent something."
guys - why do you think this is funny? This is scary monopolistic behaviour.
Is everyone on this board seriously that stupid that they don't want any choice in electronics apart from apple?
How is it monopolistic behavior? The Australian courts made a judgment in a patent dispute case. Companies ask courts for injunctions against other companies' products all of the time in trade disputes. What justifies labeling the practice "monopolistic" in Apple's case? Stopping the sale of Samsung's Tab does not restrict the sale of any other Apple tablet competitor in Australia, so buyers in that country still have choices. Try not to go off the deep end when panicking about the sky falling
So, if I follow you, they should sue Motorola (Xoom), Acer (A500), Samsung (Galaxy Tab 10.1), Asus (Transformer), HP (TouchPad), etc, just because they are 10 inch tablets with a black bezel ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 513
But that's what the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is
There is no 500 ways of designing a 10 inch tablet.
And Honeycomb IS different from iOS.
You're displaying tremendous ignorance here. First off the issue isn't 'a 10inch tablet with a black bezel', because neither the iPad nor the 10.1 tablet have a bezel of any kind. They have black margins.
If you want to see what a bezel looks like, take a gander at the MacBook Air.
Anyway given your complete cluelessness about design it's not surprising that you don't realize that there are indeed hundreds of ways that Samsung could have designed the 10.1 so that the hardware patents, design patents and trade dress complaints that Apple is asserting wouldn't apply.
"In practically all industries, this money is made from selling products and services relating to or incorporating the innovation. Patents do not sell products and are, for the most part, granted long after the related product is so old it is obsolete and no longer generating money.
If companies did not innovate, they would lose the ability to sell products, and therefore lose the ability to make money. This is much more relevant than the ability to patent something."
Yeah and? Did it ever occur to you that some (many) companies innovate AND protect their IP? Also, the part about a related product being so old it is obsolete doesn't apply in this case at all anyway since the iPad is not even two years old with sales growing exponentially.
"In practically all industries, this money is made from selling products and services relating to or incorporating the innovation. Patents do not sell products and are, for the most part, granted long after the related product is so old it is obsolete and no longer generating money.
If companies did not innovate, they would lose the ability to sell products, and therefore lose the ability to make money. This is much more relevant than the ability to patent something."
And the author goes on to include pharma patents in his tirade, when nobody can possibly imagine that a firm will spends hundreds of millions of dollars pushing a drug through clinical trials only for it to become immediately generic.
There are good cases to be made against certain classes of patent, but the author of that article overreaches so far that it's not even funny.
This is nothing more than a company defending it's patents, as it should do. How is this monopolistic?
I think people who call it "monopolistic" are using that label on Apple, not the Australian courts. Therefore, the practice they consider monopolistic is not the judgment rendered by the court, but the practice of asking for an injunction against the sale of a competitors product. The thing is, companies do this all the time. Sometimes the court grants them the request, and sometimes not, presumably on the merits of the arguments filed with the court.
However, calling it monopolistic is prejudicial, because it assumes the intention is anticompetitive, when there may be merit to the case presented to the courts. It is, in effect, dismissing Apple's claim to infringement without due process. Ergo, I conclude that anyone who calls it "monopolistic behavior" is likely prejudiced against Apple.
guys - why do you think this is funny? This is scary monopolistic behaviour.
Pity the term doesn't mean what you think it does. Being a monopoly is not in and of itself a crime, nor does it negate ones IP rights. It is only in how a company gets there and what they do with that power that can be 'evil'. Things like making it so that you must sync to a computer and it must be a Mac if you want to use an iPhone etc. Or making a rule that iOS developers can't port their apps to other mobile OSes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
Not on this scale they do not.
What would you call all the patent suits against Apple, including the one by Samsung. They claim Apple is using patented tech without proper licenses, which in effect is stealing same as this look and feel copying
Comments
http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/21/ten-...about-patents/
It should put things into places.
Some interesting reading for you guys about patents.
http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/21/ten-...about-patents/
It should put things into places.
Samsung have 40,000 patents in the US alone, they love patents - just not these patents apparently. As for your link, only a complete freetard thinks that pharmaceutical firms would continue to invest billions in drug discovery without patents.
Some interesting reading for you guys about patents.
http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/21/ten-...about-patents/
It should put things into places.
Oh great, you are one of those "all patents are evil and companies should copy to their hearts' content and let the market decide" zealots. That crap doesn't fly with me. No company should get a huge discount in R&D at another company's expense which I think is the case with Samsung.
Nobody was buying them anyway.
So, if I follow you, they should sue Motorola (Xoom), Acer (A500), Samsung (Galaxy Tab 10.1), Asus (Transformer), HP (TouchPad), etc, just because they are 10 inch tablets with a black bezel ?
No. You're not following very well. If you think a judge in Australia, and a judge in the U.S. made rulings against samsung for having a 10" tablet with a black bezel you're crazy.
Oh great, you are one of those "all patents are evil and companies should copy to their hearts' content and let the market decide" zealots. That crap doesn't fly with me. No company should get a huge discount in R&D at another company's expense which I think is the case with Samsung.
Ok, by your statement, you just confirm you didn't read the article. So pathetic.
No. You're not following very well. If you think a judge in Australia, and a judge in the U.S. made rulings against samsung for having a 10" tablet with a black bezel you're crazy.
But that's what the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is
There is no 500 ways of designing a 10 inch tablet.
And Honeycomb IS different from iOS.
Ok, by your statement, you just confirm you didn't read the article. So pathetic.
I did read it and stand by what I said (without resorting to a complete personal attack so go me!).
If companies did not innovate, they would lose the ability to sell products, and therefore lose the ability to make money. This is much more relevant than the ability to patent something."
But that's what the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is
There is no 500 ways of designing a 10 inch tablet.
And Honeycomb IS different from iOS.
If that's the argument samsung lawyers used in those two courts it's no wonder they were ruled against.
guys - why do you think this is funny? This is scary monopolistic behaviour.
Is everyone on this board seriously that stupid that they don't want any choice in electronics apart from apple?
How is it monopolistic behavior? The Australian courts made a judgment in a patent dispute case. Companies ask courts for injunctions against other companies' products all of the time in trade disputes. What justifies labeling the practice "monopolistic" in Apple's case? Stopping the sale of Samsung's Tab does not restrict the sale of any other Apple tablet competitor in Australia, so buyers in that country still have choices. Try not to go off the deep end when panicking about the sky falling
So, if I follow you, they should sue Motorola (Xoom), Acer (A500), Samsung (Galaxy Tab 10.1), Asus (Transformer), HP (TouchPad), etc, just because they are 10 inch tablets with a black bezel ?
But that's what the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is
There is no 500 ways of designing a 10 inch tablet.
And Honeycomb IS different from iOS.
You're displaying tremendous ignorance here. First off the issue isn't 'a 10inch tablet with a black bezel', because neither the iPad nor the 10.1 tablet have a bezel of any kind. They have black margins.
If you want to see what a bezel looks like, take a gander at the MacBook Air.
Anyway given your complete cluelessness about design it's not surprising that you don't realize that there are indeed hundreds of ways that Samsung could have designed the 10.1 so that the hardware patents, design patents and trade dress complaints that Apple is asserting wouldn't apply.
They chose not to.
"In practically all industries, this money is made from selling products and services relating to or incorporating the innovation. Patents do not sell products and are, for the most part, granted long after the related product is so old it is obsolete and no longer generating money.
If companies did not innovate, they would lose the ability to sell products, and therefore lose the ability to make money. This is much more relevant than the ability to patent something."
Yeah and? Did it ever occur to you that some (many) companies innovate AND protect their IP? Also, the part about a related product being so old it is obsolete doesn't apply in this case at all anyway since the iPad is not even two years old with sales growing exponentially.
"In practically all industries, this money is made from selling products and services relating to or incorporating the innovation. Patents do not sell products and are, for the most part, granted long after the related product is so old it is obsolete and no longer generating money.
If companies did not innovate, they would lose the ability to sell products, and therefore lose the ability to make money. This is much more relevant than the ability to patent something."
And the author goes on to include pharma patents in his tirade, when nobody can possibly imagine that a firm will spends hundreds of millions of dollars pushing a drug through clinical trials only for it to become immediately generic.
There are good cases to be made against certain classes of patent, but the author of that article overreaches so far that it's not even funny.
This is nothing more than a company defending it's patents, as it should do. How is this monopolistic?
I think people who call it "monopolistic" are using that label on Apple, not the Australian courts. Therefore, the practice they consider monopolistic is not the judgment rendered by the court, but the practice of asking for an injunction against the sale of a competitors product. The thing is, companies do this all the time. Sometimes the court grants them the request, and sometimes not, presumably on the merits of the arguments filed with the court.
However, calling it monopolistic is prejudicial, because it assumes the intention is anticompetitive, when there may be merit to the case presented to the courts. It is, in effect, dismissing Apple's claim to infringement without due process. Ergo, I conclude that anyone who calls it "monopolistic behavior" is likely prejudiced against Apple.
Wow.
The most interesting part.
"Should Apple lose its patent infringement lawsuit, it agreed to pay Samsung damages, which weren?t specified."
How do you put a dollar amount on missing out on the critical launch of a brand new market?
Lawyers from both sides could be arguing this bloody case for a decade.
it could not be much, they are not selling many anyway....
it could not be much, they are not selling many anyway....
Now now, I heard from a relaible source that sales were quite smooooth.
Wow.
How do you put a dollar amount on missing out on the critical launch of a brand new market?
How do you put a dollar amount on missing out on the critical a launch of a brand new product that nobody's going to buy?
ZERO
guys - why do you think this is funny? This is scary monopolistic behaviour.
Pity the term doesn't mean what you think it does. Being a monopoly is not in and of itself a crime, nor does it negate ones IP rights. It is only in how a company gets there and what they do with that power that can be 'evil'. Things like making it so that you must sync to a computer and it must be a Mac if you want to use an iPhone etc. Or making a rule that iOS developers can't port their apps to other mobile OSes.
Not on this scale they do not.
What would you call all the patent suits against Apple, including the one by Samsung. They claim Apple is using patented tech without proper licenses, which in effect is stealing same as this look and feel copying