"Distressing"? How do you think AI makes its money?
By selling its product, us readers, to its advertisers. Install Ghostery, and see how many tracking cookies get loaded each time you click. It is astounding.
All they have to do is change one very insignificant software feature and it is all over with.....
P.S. The TAB does not have touchwiz, it is did not violate the patent...
It wasn't because of TouchWiz according to reports. The tablets use Honeycomb for the OS which doesn't exhibit the same snap-back and bounce action if a photo isn't fully swiped to the next screen. So only the 2.x version devices like the Galaxy and Ace were included in the order.
Because litigation is an expensive waste and a distraction, and because there are many other lawsuits both pending and in the wings. Apple is very litigious, using its army of lawyers to get ahead.
Settlement is often the best way to end these things.
It wasn't because of TouchWiz according to reports. The tablets use Honeycomb for the OS which doesn't exhibit the same snap-back and bounce action if a photo isn't fully swiped to the next screen. So only the 2.x version devices like the Galaxy and Ace were included in the order.
I am running an AOSP (aka Stock) Rom on my incredible. The stock gallery app doesn't have bounce back. My Tab (with touchwix) does have it, so I'm assuming that the issue is with touchwiz, and not stock android.
Though I think I remember a different patent (flicking through pictures) that is the same on both touchwiz and stock.
This was a "win" for apple because they got three phones "banned," at least temporarily. But it was largely a loss for them, if I'm reading most of the commentary right, since so much (including the "slide to unlock" patent) were called into question and risk being invalidated.
I agree with others here who said that it doesn't make sense for samsung to try and settle here. There only seems to be one strong case against them in this court, and it's something they can fix with a software update. If anything, Apple might be more prone to settle, if only to mitigate the risk of any patents being invalidated.
Because litigation is an expensive waste and a distraction, and because there are many other lawsuits both pending and in the wings. Apple is very litigious, using its army of lawyers to get ahead.
Settlement is often the best way to end these things.
Samsung fights, they have the chance of getting some of these patents thrown out (which will greatly help their cases elsewhere).
Apple is the one who might start considering settling now. I'm pretty sure Samsung was always open to settling. Most companies typically are. Apple's the one out for blood, but the risk of having their patents invalidated could cause them to rethink. Settlement would mean they'd have to drop cases against Samsung. Invalidation means that their lawsuits against HTC and Motorola could become weaker.
If Apple had claimed the right to icons, it might have been relevant. But since it shares no characteristics with the iPhone, it's not.
Actually it does. Slide the slideout QWERTY keyboard in and it looks very similar. But that is the Prada KF900 which was released in 2008. The phone in question was the Prada KE850 which did not have a slideout keyboard.
Here is a good closeup of the original Prada phone - made public, complete with photos before the iPhone was announced.
I agree with others here who said that it doesn't make sense for samsung to try and settle here. ... If anything, Apple might be more prone to settle, if only to mitigate the risk of any patents being invalidated.
It takes two to tango, and two to settle. Apple might try to drop its suit, but if there have been counterclaims, that is not a choice it can make alone.
Interestingly, Apple's claim to own the rights to the rectangular shape of a tablet may still pass muster with the German judge. Sounds crazy, with innumerable examples of slate and tablet devices over the years all produced or proposed in that shape. But the German court is not considering any elements other than the pen drawing of a rectangle as a possible device that Apple lays claim to in a Design Patent.
Unlike US courts, a judgement in a different jurisdiction in Europe only needs to be acknowledged by the German judge, but doesn't necessarily carry any weight. In addition, common procedures such as discovery are not a part of the German proceeding. So a simple question such as "How long has Apple known about the Galaxy Tab shape" can't even be made. And that's an important question since if Apple has known about the general design of the Galaxy Tab for more than 30 days prior to filing they can't ask for the emergency injunction as they've done. As FOSS Patents points out, no one at Apple is going to volunteer that they've known for some time what the Tab looks like. As FOSS goes on to indicate, there's a reason why Apple chose Dusseldorf for the filing, and why that court is compared to our patent-friendly East Texas courts.
Pretty darn interesting how some foreign legal systems work.
It takes two to tango, and two to settle. Apple might try to drop its suit, but if there have been counterclaims, that is not a choice it can make alone.
Apple is the aggressor here. The POINT of a countersuit is to get the aggressor to settle instead of litigate. Again, most companies do these kinds of things to settle out of court. Apple's the one out for blood. I'm pretty sure that samsung, HTC, motoroloa, etc are all willing to settle, because that's how these lawsuits generally play out. Patents were typically a nuclear arsenal, you parade them around to make everyone play nice.
EDIT: Should point out that when I say aggressor, I'm using it to mean they're the ones who first sued. When I use "Out for blood" I mean that they're trying to shut these products down, not just seek damages or change.
something that a human being understands intuitively, without need of explanation, or example, is, by definition, obvious
I'll just post this again, then, since I never got a clarification from anyone with your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And so you're the one who gets to define "intuitive", then? So what happens if something more "intuitive" comes along? Does that mean I get to patent my older, once-thought-to-be-unpatentable invention?
Speculation around the iPhone began in 1999 when Apple registered the iPhone.org domain name. The New York Times in 2002 wrote about a product possibly combining phone and PDA-like features being under development. The iPhone was finally unveiled in 2007.
Comments
Any apologies yet from the "blatantly copying" crowd?
Nope, because judges in Australia and Germany have ruled that Samsung is blatantly copying Apple.
In spite of all good intentions, law is still subjective.
So THIS looks like an iPone to you?
http://www.lgblog.co.uk/wp-content/u...ne-by-lg-5.jpg
That doesn't, but this does:
http://www.biliom.com/cep-telefonu/w...lg-prada-2.jpg
I'll be honest and say that some Samsungs do look more like iPhone than iPhone looked like Prada... but number of GUI elements are there.
That doesn't, but this does:
http://www.biliom.com/cep-telefonu/w...lg-prada-2.jpg
I'll be honest and say that some Samsungs do look more like iPhone than iPhone looked like Prada... but number of GUI elements are there.
Well, gee. The version that was released after the iPhone looks much more like the iPhone than the previous version.
Thanks for proving the point.
Samsung made it very simple for those who dont like to read:
Looks like a settlement is very likely after this fiasco.
"Distressing"? How do you think AI makes its money?
By selling its product, us readers, to its advertisers. Install Ghostery, and see how many tracking cookies get loaded each time you click. It is astounding.
Looks like a settlement is very likely after this fiasco.
Why would Samsung possible settle???????
All they have to do is change one very insignificant software feature and it is all over with.....
P.S. The TAB does not have touchwiz, it is did not violate the patent...
Why would Samsung possible settle???????
All they have to do is change one very insignificant software feature and it is all over with.....
P.S. The TAB does not have touchwiz, it is did not violate the patent...
It wasn't because of TouchWiz according to reports. The tablets use Honeycomb for the OS which doesn't exhibit the same snap-back and bounce action if a photo isn't fully swiped to the next screen. So only the 2.x version devices like the Galaxy and Ace were included in the order.
Well, gee. The version that was released after the iPhone looks much more like the iPhone than the previous version.
Thanks for proving the point.
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or just a bit slow?
The image linked in the post you quoted is of the original KE850, revealed prior to the iPhone.
Why would Samsung possible settle???????
Because litigation is an expensive waste and a distraction, and because there are many other lawsuits both pending and in the wings. Apple is very litigious, using its army of lawyers to get ahead.
Settlement is often the best way to end these things.
It wasn't because of TouchWiz according to reports. The tablets use Honeycomb for the OS which doesn't exhibit the same snap-back and bounce action if a photo isn't fully swiped to the next screen. So only the 2.x version devices like the Galaxy and Ace were included in the order.
I am running an AOSP (aka Stock) Rom on my incredible. The stock gallery app doesn't have bounce back. My Tab (with touchwix) does have it, so I'm assuming that the issue is with touchwiz, and not stock android.
Though I think I remember a different patent (flicking through pictures) that is the same on both touchwiz and stock.
This was a "win" for apple because they got three phones "banned," at least temporarily. But it was largely a loss for them, if I'm reading most of the commentary right, since so much (including the "slide to unlock" patent) were called into question and risk being invalidated.
I agree with others here who said that it doesn't make sense for samsung to try and settle here. There only seems to be one strong case against them in this court, and it's something they can fix with a software update. If anything, Apple might be more prone to settle, if only to mitigate the risk of any patents being invalidated.
Because litigation is an expensive waste and a distraction, and because there are many other lawsuits both pending and in the wings. Apple is very litigious, using its army of lawyers to get ahead.
Settlement is often the best way to end these things.
Samsung fights, they have the chance of getting some of these patents thrown out (which will greatly help their cases elsewhere).
Apple is the one who might start considering settling now. I'm pretty sure Samsung was always open to settling. Most companies typically are. Apple's the one out for blood, but the risk of having their patents invalidated could cause them to rethink. Settlement would mean they'd have to drop cases against Samsung. Invalidation means that their lawsuits against HTC and Motorola could become weaker.
So THIS looks like an iPone to you?
http://www.lgblog.co.uk/wp-content/u...ne-by-lg-5.jpg
If Apple had claimed the right to icons, it might have been relevant. But since it shares no characteristics with the iPhone, it's not.
Actually it does. Slide the slideout QWERTY keyboard in and it looks very similar. But that is the Prada KF900 which was released in 2008. The phone in question was the Prada KE850 which did not have a slideout keyboard.
Here is a good closeup of the original Prada phone - made public, complete with photos before the iPhone was announced.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/unlocke...ne/3397094437/
Nope, because judges in Australia and Germany have ruled that Samsung is blatantly copying Apple.
In spite of all good intentions, law is still subjective.
Can you show me the court decissions where it's said that they blatanly copying?
I agree with others here who said that it doesn't make sense for samsung to try and settle here. ... If anything, Apple might be more prone to settle, if only to mitigate the risk of any patents being invalidated.
It takes two to tango, and two to settle. Apple might try to drop its suit, but if there have been counterclaims, that is not a choice it can make alone.
Unlike US courts, a judgement in a different jurisdiction in Europe only needs to be acknowledged by the German judge, but doesn't necessarily carry any weight. In addition, common procedures such as discovery are not a part of the German proceeding. So a simple question such as "How long has Apple known about the Galaxy Tab shape" can't even be made. And that's an important question since if Apple has known about the general design of the Galaxy Tab for more than 30 days prior to filing they can't ask for the emergency injunction as they've done. As FOSS Patents points out, no one at Apple is going to volunteer that they've known for some time what the Tab looks like. As FOSS goes on to indicate, there's a reason why Apple chose Dusseldorf for the filing, and why that court is compared to our patent-friendly East Texas courts.
Pretty darn interesting how some foreign legal systems work.
It takes two to tango, and two to settle. Apple might try to drop its suit, but if there have been counterclaims, that is not a choice it can make alone.
Apple is the aggressor here. The POINT of a countersuit is to get the aggressor to settle instead of litigate. Again, most companies do these kinds of things to settle out of court. Apple's the one out for blood. I'm pretty sure that samsung, HTC, motoroloa, etc are all willing to settle, because that's how these lawsuits generally play out. Patents were typically a nuclear arsenal, you parade them around to make everyone play nice.
EDIT: Should point out that when I say aggressor, I'm using it to mean they're the ones who first sued. When I use "Out for blood" I mean that they're trying to shut these products down, not just seek damages or change.
What an asinine statement.
the fact is that you can't patent the obvious
something that a human being understands intuitively, without need of explanation, or example, is, by definition, obvious
you may not like it, but that's how it is, you can whine all you like, you can't change that, facts are like that
that you resort to insult, simply because you don't like the facts, says a lot about you
something that a human being understands intuitively, without need of explanation, or example, is, by definition, obvious
I'll just post this again, then, since I never got a clarification from anyone with your position.
And so you're the one who gets to define "intuitive", then? So what happens if something more "intuitive" comes along? Does that mean I get to patent my older, once-thought-to-be-unpatentable invention?