Sorry you may think apple started it. but if you read fosspatent blog apple states that samsung sued them them first.
Samsung didn't sue them first. Apple sued samsung first. (Trade Dress, US) Samsung sued apple in several international courts first, but ONLY after Apple sued them here.
The design is everything. You aren't giving the design enough credit. The design is what people are willing to pay for. Features alone don't mean anything if no one wants to use them. Design isn't as simple as here is a rectangle with rounded corners. Great way to dumb down the conversation. The responses you get in this case are well earned. The accusations about Tim Cook are ridiculous and unfounded. You are just talking out of your ass.
Design is everything, but trying to patent the BASIC design (eg a device that is basically a rectangle with a screen on one side) isn't something that should be patentable. Someone tried comparing it to the Mona-lisa. This is far too generious. It's more like Apple tried patenting a Square canvas and then proceeds to sue EVERY artist, no matter what the paining looks like.
Remember, they're using the SAME "community design" arguments against the freaking XOOM.
Actually, rounded corners is patented by Apple (from what I've read on these forums) so why NOT dumb it down to that?
Design isn't what people are willing to pay for, I guarantee it. They are willing to pay for a device they can use. Maybe design on the software front is more your point. If you put iOS on the nastiest looking Android phone, and THAT was what Apple went with, they would still sell.
eh depends on what came before. if they went from the iPhone 4 to, say, the dreadful Motorola backflip then I can see people hesitating to buy. (or they'd say it's the greatest thing ever since apple can do no wrong) but if it started ugly and stayed ugly it'd sell well.
but yea. Apple patented a basic rectangular tablet with rounded corners. people stand up for that. you wont get through with logic on that front.
talk about touchwiz mimicking iOS. talk about packaging. I'd be inclined to agree. but when u support a patent on something that is basic with modern tech I can't take u seriously.
hell they sued Motorola for the same thing with the Xoom Does the Xoom look like an ipad?
I find it hilarious how so many people come to these boards and throw mud at Apple(or even Samsung) without knowing the whole story. Obviously there are reasons as to why this whole thing has come this far. Why do you assume that other avenues of settling these accusations have not been explored? It almost looks like Engadget commenters have made their way to AI and the knowledgeable ones are being baited into replying to their trolling... I'm going to have to enforce my Engadget filter here on AIalso and just stop reading comments because this is getting ridiculous.
Because with the current trend, companies will now start reconsidering submitting those patents to the patent body because it will be much more profitable to withhold them and then sue people, or at least keep them for bargaining chips.
Not necessarily!
Say companies A, B and C have competing technologies to accomplish the same task.
Company B submits its technology as a standard!
It gets accepted as a/the standard.
This can have one or more the following effects:
1) A's & C's technologies are diminished or abandoned because they are non-standard
2) B gets a cash cow -- every competitor must license the patent
3) B reduces or eliminates the competitors and/or competitive devices
4) B gains some competitive advantages:
--- Lower costs, as they don't have to pay for a license for their own technology
--- Head-start and/or first-to-market, as they are in a better position to exploit their own technology
5) B establishes a base-line on which to build additional technology and/or standards
6) B gets a seat at the table as its technology must be used in competitors devices -- just as competitors technologies must be used in B's devices
This last, is what Sammy and MMI appear to be trying to unfairly use as leverage/protection in litigation involving patented non-standard technology.
And they shouldn't. If you want to hit the jackpot, then don't use the FRAND patent system and hope for a more favorable outcome in the court room. Why should FRAND patents and other standards related patents give you lawsuit protection?
Explain to me why FRAND patents should be lawsuit protection against legitimate claims. It's an automatic win for the FRAND patent holder and has nothing to do with the other case. The companies were going to get what they were always going to get with an FRAND patent.
The companies clearly felt going the FRAND route would be more beneficial to their bottom line when they applied for such patents. I'm lost here. I want good solid logic... I believe the patent system is broken but not necessarily as it relates to FRAND patents in general.
In order to get other companies to license the patents, these companies try to get FRAND status and then when they are sued because they infringed on someone else's non FRAND patent they come back with an FRAND as a defense of some sort. So they want double compensation when they were the company benefiting from people licensing your product rather than develop their own in the first place? Where am I going wrong here?
It sounds like the companies want all the benefits of FRAND status but not the downside of the FRAND status.
I agree that Apple spends a fair chunk in Engineering R&D but theoretical physics? Lol, I suppose the new spaceship campus doubles as a giant synchrotron too. Gotta accelerate them particles.
I don't know what they have now... but in the 1980s Apple had a Cray Computer -- then, the most powerful computer in the world.
I am sure they have some state-of-the-art compute power today -- and it isn't being used to print invoices for the Apple Online Store.
You can see patent applications that show that Apple is doing research, in light, display, touch, sound, transmission and battery technologies -- some of which involve theoretical physics.
Because Apple's refused to pay: Nokia, Motorola, Samsung (and who knows how many others) the licensing fees for those Frand patents. That means that not only can these companies NOT use the patents defensively, but the revenue stream isn't there.
(If apple was paying fees already, the case couldn't be brought to court)
That is not true. Nokia was trying to price gouge Apple with FRAND patents. Apple said they were happy to pay the market rate for the Nokia FRAND patents it was using and nothing more. This is what the whole case was about to begin with....not whether or not Apple owed Nokia money. Apple acknowledged that they owed money. The dispute was about how much money they owed.
Because they're completely unrelated. That's like asking why a patent on a new wheel is useless when you get sued for copying the Mona Lisa.
Let me try to make it simple. There are certain technologies which are necessary to the function of cell phones. These include the baseband and means of communicating with the cell towers. If there is no agreement on those technologies, then the entire system becomes useless (how would Verizon deal with it if every phone wanted to communicate differently?). These essential technologies become industry standards. When a company has a patent controlling one of the technologies, they license it under FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms. That is, everyone who uses the technology pays the same amount. This is a benefit to the industry because they don't have to deal with 1,000 different fundamental processes.
On the other side are device-specific patents and, in particular, design patents. These involve ways of doing things that are not essential to the operation of the entire network. For example, Apple's 'swipe to unlock' patent. While every phone must have a way to unlock (or must stay powered on at all times), there are many ways of accomplishing that, so being able to swipe is NOT essential to the operation of the network. Therefore, the inventor is not required to license that technology.
There is absolutely nothing inconsistent about Apple's argument, nor is there any hypocrisy. Apple's position has always been "essential things that are licensed under FRAND must remain FRAND (see, for example, their suit against Nokia) and things that are not licensed under FRAND and are non-essential remain the inventor's property to do with as they will".
You mis-spelled "Funny how more and more Apple haters have found their way to AppleInsider".
No synchrotron, but their antenna lab uses some pretty advanced physics and instrumentation research. It's not a major part of Apple's R&D, but they do SOME theoretical work.
Nice post. The way you explained the patent issue -- anyone who can't understand that, doesn't want to understand it!
The only purpose to putting logic behind an argument that criticizes apple on AI is if you are bored and can't think of a better use of your time (or if you want to put it into words for your own purposes) No matter what is said, if it's critical of apple on AI, people will say it's illogical, if they acknowledge it at all.
Ladies and gentlemen, my point exactly. I know the two issues are not the same, I read the article, and I understand the complaint, it just comes across a little disingenuous. I tend to agree with Apple on the complaint, but also tend to agree that it's a bit childish. Just because someone or something does something wrong doesn't mean that you go and tattle on them. Work something out between the two of you.
Think about this example:
You live in a small town, and the owner of the only gas station in town stole from you. You brought him to court asking for damage, and he counter sued you to stop you from buying gas from him.
Now would you be childish if you point out what the store owner did is wrong?
Apple patented a basic rectangular tablet with rounded corners. people stand up for that. you wont get through with logic on that front.
Funny how the Apple haters keep saying that - but no one has been able to come up with a patent where Apple claimed a patent on a rectangular tablet with rounded corners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu
Think about this example:
You live in a small town, and the owner of the only gas station in town stole from you. You brought him to court asking for damage, and he counter sued you to stop you from buying gas from him.
Now would you be childish if you point out what the store owner did is wrong?
I've seen some pretty convoluted analogies, but that may well be the worst.
Funny how the Apple haters keep saying that - but no one has been able to come up with a patent where Apple claimed a patent on a rectangular tablet with rounded corners.
wasn't that the entire complaint against Samsung? (and Motorola)
wasn't that the entire complaint against Samsung? (and Motorola)
I'm not interested in what all the Apple-haters say that the complaint was about. I'd like to see the patent where they claim that Apple is trying to patent a rectangle with rounded corners.
. . . but no one has been able to come up with a patent where Apple claimed a patent on a rectangular tablet with rounded corners.
I've done so several times. but I guess one time more won't hurt . . .
This is what Apple is alleging against Sammy in Germany, for which they were given an injunction. That's it. No touchscreen or gesture patents, no icon similarity. Simply the rectangular shape with rounded corners, which Apple claims to have the sole rights to. Now that I've led you to the source JrAgosta, does this seem reasonable to you?
Comments
Sorry you may think apple started it. but if you read fosspatent blog apple states that samsung sued them them first.
Samsung didn't sue them first. Apple sued samsung first. (Trade Dress, US) Samsung sued apple in several international courts first, but ONLY after Apple sued them here.
The design is everything. You aren't giving the design enough credit. The design is what people are willing to pay for. Features alone don't mean anything if no one wants to use them. Design isn't as simple as here is a rectangle with rounded corners. Great way to dumb down the conversation. The responses you get in this case are well earned. The accusations about Tim Cook are ridiculous and unfounded. You are just talking out of your ass.
Design is everything, but trying to patent the BASIC design (eg a device that is basically a rectangle with a screen on one side) isn't something that should be patentable. Someone tried comparing it to the Mona-lisa. This is far too generious. It's more like Apple tried patenting a Square canvas and then proceeds to sue EVERY artist, no matter what the paining looks like.
Remember, they're using the SAME "community design" arguments against the freaking XOOM.
Slab?
So you believe Apple has patented a glass slab?
Do you know what a "slab" is?
A slab by its very definition indicates a most uniPad like THICK object.
Perhaps you need some of the illegal meds Google was recently convicted of helping the importers to supply.
You apparently don't know that "black slab" is commonly used to define the modern touchscreen smartphone/tablet.
That's ok though, Logic is hard.
Actually, rounded corners is patented by Apple (from what I've read on these forums) so why NOT dumb it down to that?
Design isn't what people are willing to pay for, I guarantee it. They are willing to pay for a device they can use. Maybe design on the software front is more your point. If you put iOS on the nastiest looking Android phone, and THAT was what Apple went with, they would still sell.
eh depends on what came before. if they went from the iPhone 4 to, say, the dreadful Motorola backflip then I can see people hesitating to buy. (or they'd say it's the greatest thing ever since apple can do no wrong) but if it started ugly and stayed ugly it'd sell well.
but yea. Apple patented a basic rectangular tablet with rounded corners. people stand up for that. you wont get through with logic on that front.
talk about touchwiz mimicking iOS. talk about packaging. I'd be inclined to agree. but when u support a patent on something that is basic with modern tech I can't take u seriously.
hell they sued Motorola for the same thing with the Xoom Does the Xoom look like an ipad?
Because with the current trend, companies will now start reconsidering submitting those patents to the patent body because it will be much more profitable to withhold them and then sue people, or at least keep them for bargaining chips.
Not necessarily!
Say companies A, B and C have competing technologies to accomplish the same task.
Company B submits its technology as a standard!
It gets accepted as a/the standard.
This can have one or more the following effects:
1) A's & C's technologies are diminished or abandoned because they are non-standard
2) B gets a cash cow -- every competitor must license the patent
3) B reduces or eliminates the competitors and/or competitive devices
4) B gains some competitive advantages:
--- Lower costs, as they don't have to pay for a license for their own technology
--- Head-start and/or first-to-market, as they are in a better position to exploit their own technology
5) B establishes a base-line on which to build additional technology and/or standards
6) B gets a seat at the table as its technology must be used in competitors devices -- just as competitors technologies must be used in B's devices
This last, is what Sammy and MMI appear to be trying to unfairly use as leverage/protection in litigation involving patented non-standard technology.
And they shouldn't. If you want to hit the jackpot, then don't use the FRAND patent system and hope for a more favorable outcome in the court room. Why should FRAND patents and other standards related patents give you lawsuit protection?
Explain to me why FRAND patents should be lawsuit protection against legitimate claims. It's an automatic win for the FRAND patent holder and has nothing to do with the other case. The companies were going to get what they were always going to get with an FRAND patent.
The companies clearly felt going the FRAND route would be more beneficial to their bottom line when they applied for such patents. I'm lost here. I want good solid logic... I believe the patent system is broken but not necessarily as it relates to FRAND patents in general.
In order to get other companies to license the patents, these companies try to get FRAND status and then when they are sued because they infringed on someone else's non FRAND patent they come back with an FRAND as a defense of some sort. So they want double compensation when they were the company benefiting from people licensing your product rather than develop their own in the first place? Where am I going wrong here?
It sounds like the companies want all the benefits of FRAND status but not the downside of the FRAND status.
+++ Well said!
Funny how more and more people on Apple Insider are starting to grow discontent with Apple's hypocrisy.
Ahh... mostly the usual suspects.
I generally agree with Sol -- but not this time.
I agree that Apple spends a fair chunk in Engineering R&D but theoretical physics? Lol, I suppose the new spaceship campus doubles as a giant synchrotron too. Gotta accelerate them particles.
I don't know what they have now... but in the 1980s Apple had a Cray Computer -- then, the most powerful computer in the world.
I am sure they have some state-of-the-art compute power today -- and it isn't being used to print invoices for the Apple Online Store.
You can see patent applications that show that Apple is doing research, in light, display, touch, sound, transmission and battery technologies -- some of which involve theoretical physics.
Because Apple's refused to pay: Nokia, Motorola, Samsung (and who knows how many others) the licensing fees for those Frand patents. That means that not only can these companies NOT use the patents defensively, but the revenue stream isn't there.
(If apple was paying fees already, the case couldn't be brought to court)
That is not true. Nokia was trying to price gouge Apple with FRAND patents. Apple said they were happy to pay the market rate for the Nokia FRAND patents it was using and nothing more. This is what the whole case was about to begin with....not whether or not Apple owed Nokia money. Apple acknowledged that they owed money. The dispute was about how much money they owed.
Because they're completely unrelated. That's like asking why a patent on a new wheel is useless when you get sued for copying the Mona Lisa.
Let me try to make it simple. There are certain technologies which are necessary to the function of cell phones. These include the baseband and means of communicating with the cell towers. If there is no agreement on those technologies, then the entire system becomes useless (how would Verizon deal with it if every phone wanted to communicate differently?). These essential technologies become industry standards. When a company has a patent controlling one of the technologies, they license it under FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms. That is, everyone who uses the technology pays the same amount. This is a benefit to the industry because they don't have to deal with 1,000 different fundamental processes.
On the other side are device-specific patents and, in particular, design patents. These involve ways of doing things that are not essential to the operation of the entire network. For example, Apple's 'swipe to unlock' patent. While every phone must have a way to unlock (or must stay powered on at all times), there are many ways of accomplishing that, so being able to swipe is NOT essential to the operation of the network. Therefore, the inventor is not required to license that technology.
There is absolutely nothing inconsistent about Apple's argument, nor is there any hypocrisy. Apple's position has always been "essential things that are licensed under FRAND must remain FRAND (see, for example, their suit against Nokia) and things that are not licensed under FRAND and are non-essential remain the inventor's property to do with as they will".
You mis-spelled "Funny how more and more Apple haters have found their way to AppleInsider".
No synchrotron, but their antenna lab uses some pretty advanced physics and instrumentation research. It's not a major part of Apple's R&D, but they do SOME theoretical work.
Nice post. The way you explained the patent issue -- anyone who can't understand that, doesn't want to understand it!
Not necessarily!
Say companies A, B and C have competing technologies to accomplish the same task.
Company B submits its technology as a standard!
It gets accepted as a/the standard.
This can have one or more the following effects:
1) A'c & C's technologies are diminished or abandoned because they are non-standard
2) B gets a cash cow -- every competitor must license the patent
3) B reduces or eliminates the competitors and/or competitive devices
4) B gains some competitive advantages:
--- Lower costs, as they don't have to pay for a license for their own technology
--- Head-start and/or first-to-market, as they are in a better position to exploit their own technology
5) B establishes a base-line on which to build additional technology and/or standards
6) B gets a seat at the table as its technology must be used in competitors devices -- just as competitors technologies must be used in B's devices
This last, is what Sammy and MMI appear to be trying to unfairly use as leverage/protection in litigation involving patented non-standard technology.
That almost exactly how I saw this particular accusation by Apple. It seems like a valid claim to me.
What some might call a double standard.
Perhaps. But 'some' don't understand the rules of the game as it is being played out...
Baseball is baseball - in one division the pitchers bat and in another you have designated hitters.
Hardly a double standard.
The only purpose to putting logic behind an argument that criticizes apple on AI is if you are bored and can't think of a better use of your time (or if you want to put it into words for your own purposes) No matter what is said, if it's critical of apple on AI, people will say it's illogical, if they acknowledge it at all.
I do not agree!
But, if you think that is the case...
Why are you here?
Why do you post?
Perhaps. But 'some' don't understand the rules of the game as it is being played out...
Baseball is baseball - in one division the pitchers bat and in another you have designated hitters.
Hardly a double standard.
Bingo!
...Then there's that whole indoor football or indoor soccer thing...
Ladies and gentlemen, my point exactly. I know the two issues are not the same, I read the article, and I understand the complaint, it just comes across a little disingenuous. I tend to agree with Apple on the complaint, but also tend to agree that it's a bit childish. Just because someone or something does something wrong doesn't mean that you go and tattle on them. Work something out between the two of you.
Think about this example:
You live in a small town, and the owner of the only gas station in town stole from you. You brought him to court asking for damage, and he counter sued you to stop you from buying gas from him.
Now would you be childish if you point out what the store owner did is wrong?
Apple patented a basic rectangular tablet with rounded corners. people stand up for that. you wont get through with logic on that front.
Funny how the Apple haters keep saying that - but no one has been able to come up with a patent where Apple claimed a patent on a rectangular tablet with rounded corners.
Think about this example:
You live in a small town, and the owner of the only gas station in town stole from you. You brought him to court asking for damage, and he counter sued you to stop you from buying gas from him.
Now would you be childish if you point out what the store owner did is wrong?
I've seen some pretty convoluted analogies, but that may well be the worst.
Funny how the Apple haters keep saying that - but no one has been able to come up with a patent where Apple claimed a patent on a rectangular tablet with rounded corners.
wasn't that the entire complaint against Samsung? (and Motorola)
wasn't that the entire complaint against Samsung? (and Motorola)
I'm not interested in what all the Apple-haters say that the complaint was about. I'd like to see the patent where they claim that Apple is trying to patent a rectangle with rounded corners.
Put up or shut up.
. . . but no one has been able to come up with a patent where Apple claimed a patent on a rectangular tablet with rounded corners.
I've done so several times.
This is what Apple is alleging against Sammy in Germany, for which they were given an injunction. That's it. No touchscreen or gesture patents, no icon similarity. Simply the rectangular shape with rounded corners, which Apple claims to have the sole rights to. Now that I've led you to the source JrAgosta, does this seem reasonable to you?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/C...000181607-0001
And a reasoned (IMO) blog on the issue.
http://www.netbooknews.com/32506/act...ding-a-tablet/