Samsung is obviously copying Apple and deserves to be punished. Boycott them now and for a long time.
There is no better way to determine whether Samsung infringed on Apple's patents then the court.
The court has determine it does not.
Are you trying to go against the court here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead
FACT : there was nothing like the ipad before the ipad. Tables were thick bloated hard ware devices because of running a bloated OS from Microsoft. tablets prior to the iPad had buttons and controls on the front bezel.
Once the iPad came out, all tables suddenly got real thin, did away with all buttons on the front bezel, adopted a touch input with no pen, adopted the iOS clone Android rather than a bloated Microsoft OS so they could ditch the super thick bloated hardware requirements of a bloated Microsoft OS.
FACT: There were no tablets in the sense the iPad revolutionized the tablet and redefined the term. After iPad, all tablets look like the iPad, coping its design and OS. And the courts are saying its okay for everyone to steal Apple's designs and copy everything they do. Thereby ensuring the future is free of innovation since as soon as Apple creates anything it will be cloned by Samesung and all the other cloners. And as history shows, no company other than Apple innovates anymore.
Your argument doesnt hold because it leave out the technology progress of miniaturization.
As time goes on, everything becomes smaller, cheaper and faster.
I know you're a troll and your posts are absolutely ridiculous logic-wise most of the time, but this takes the cake.
How can a TV show from the 80's be "prior art" for anything other than other TV shows? You don't understand law at all do you?
Thanks for the laugh.
Google much?
This isn't talking about a TV show at all -- it was a conceptual design presentation from a tech firm that was looking for funding to build a tablet computer. By all appearances, a good deal of the ergonomic design work contributing to the "look and feel" of a functional tablet had already been conceived and fleshed out before the presentation was produced -- in 1994. David Hasselhoff has nothing at all to do with the suggested Knight Ridder prior art.
Since you seem unable to corroborate details for yourself, I'll save you the trouble:
Before anyone attacks Judge Lucy Koh because she is of Korean descent (Samsungs hometown). She is a Harvard graduate who worked in Palo Alto (Apples hometown) on intellectual property cases and she's married to a Stanford law professor. Sounds like she is a brilliant person . Although, more than likely, the 9th circuit will overturn her ruling...... As usual.
I know you're a troll and your posts are absolutely ridiculous logic-wise most of the time, but this takes the cake.
How can a TV show from the 80's be "prior art" for anything other than other TV shows? You don't understand law at all do you?
Thanks for the laugh.
Think about this: What if a movie showed, for example, a bicycle that folded up so to be easy to carry, where nobody had ever thought of that before. Let's say that the movie included a scene where the mechanism is described and shown in detail.
Are you saying that somebody could run out and get a patent on that implementation? That there exists no prior art, despite the mechanism having been invented by the script writer and implemented by the prop master?
Lets say my company puts out a new microwave. It is sleek and beautiful. It also performs quite well! Everyone wants one. I also take the time to patent the look and feel. Nobody challenges my patent so it goes through the patent office. That look is square...rectangle with a door with predefined buttons with cooking times preprogrammed and a light that comes on when you turn it on.
From this point forward....I will sue any other company that produces a microwave with the same look and feel of mine. My companies has very very deep pockets and has unlimited resources to litigate anyone that produces a microwave that is sleek and square with a door and light that comes on when you open it. All companies are threatened with lawsuits.
But this one company i sue because they aslo made a microwave with a square shape and door with a light and pre programmed cooking buttons. I sue that they violated the look and feel of my microwave. OHHH did I mention this company also makes parts for my product.....so it has become personal. I want to punish them. I feel betrayed. Other companies are producing the same microwave but I don't sue them.....only the company that i feel betrayed by.......
I think that if any of the Apple utility patents were to be deemed essential (unable to work-around), then yes they might be required to license them.
"An essential patent is a patent which discloses and claims one or more inventions that are required to practice a given industry standard. [1] Standardisation bodies, therefore, often require members disclose and grant licenses to patents and pending patent applications that they own and that cover a standard that the body is developing. Failure to do so is a form of patent misuse.
If standards bodies fail to get licenses to all patents that are essential to practicing a standard, then the owners of those unlicensed patents can often demand royalties from those who ultimately adopt the standards. This is what happened, for example, to the GIF and JPEG standards."
You seem to be confusing the definition of the word "essential". A patent can be "essential" in terms of the ability to implement a particular feature, but the feature itself may not be "essential" to conforming to a recognized industry standard.
If the patent in question doesn't cover an application that is essential to implementing a technology that is regulated by a recognized standardization body, then that definition doesn't apply. For example, an essential feature of a cell phone is the ability to place a phone call. Patents related to interfacing with the latest GSM communication standards would be considered essential and would therefore be covered. But an extra feature, for example, to allow the cell phone to additionally prepare a fresh shot of espresso, would not necessarily covered.
So, I may have a patent that is essential to allowing a cell phone to produce a shot of espresso. It may be impossible for a cell phone to produce a shot of espresso unless they use the technology in my patent. But, because it isn't essential for a cell phone to produce an espresso in order to qualify as a cell phone, I wouldn't have any obligation to license that patent to anybody.
This is just a hearing on a preliminary injunction. To my feeble non-lawyer mind, it would have been more a negative for Samsung to lose than for Apple to lose. A preliminary injunction by definition (lawyers correct me if I am wrong) is an appeal to enjoin before the real trial. To get this a company needs to show that there is a preponderance of evidence in its favor - so much so that the court would enjoin prior to the actual trial. To grant one is almost the exception.
It seems to me that the judge here has said - "Not enough to go preliminary - Go have your day in court. If you can prove otherwise there - you will get a full injunction."
In that light I do not see it a a major loss. Once again, the press is blowing it out of proportion. (imho)
(Once again - any lawyers out there correct me if I am mistake.)
You're absolutely correct. In the U.S., a preliminary injunction is only ordered if the defendant is unable to make good any potential harm to the plaintiff. For example, let's say that the court thinks that there could be a final judgment of $10 B. If Samsung had the ability to pay $20 B without going bankrupt, there would be no injunction.
In addition, if the plaintiff could show that there would be irreparable harm (that is, harm that NO amount of money would fix), then the judge can order an injunction.
In this case, the judge did not rule on the merits of the case. She simply said that there's no danger of irreparable harm. That is, Samsung has enough money to pay any amount of damages that might conceivably be awarded.
you are so correct! Apple has the tablet market pretty much to themselves. The sales figures of the ipad prove this fact. Sooo......how do do you prove harm from Samsung? You admit no other tablet maker has made a dent in iPad sales. Apple has the tablet market pretty much to themselves. So where is the damage to Apple?
I wasn't trying to get involved in this thread's main argument I was making an entirely different point. However, if my assertion is true that Android tablets suck sufficiently to fail all by themselves, it doesn't preclude Apple from protecting their IP in case a copy ever bacame a threat.
I think that if any of the Apple utility patents were to be deemed essential (unable to work-around), then yes they might be required to license them.
"An essential patent is a patent which discloses and claims one or more inventions that are required to practice a given industry standard. [1] Standardisation bodies, therefore, often require members disclose and grant licenses to patents and pending patent applications that they own and that cover a standard that the body is developing. Failure to do so is a form of patent misuse.
If standards bodies fail to get licenses to all patents that are essential to practicing a standard, then the owners of those unlicensed patents can often demand royalties from those who ultimately adopt the standards. This is what happened, for example, to the GIF and JPEG standards."
Thanks, but can you equate 'essential' and 'unable to work-around'?
There is no better way to determine whether Samsung infringed on Apple's patents then the court.
The court has determine it does not.
Are you trying to go against the court here?
The court has done no such thing. The only thing the court has done is to deny the request for an injunction on sales. If you had any kind of reading ability or comprehension you might have noticed the next paragraph in which Judge Koh says that Apple is, in fact, likely to prove that Samsung infringes at east one of Apple's patents. But that little detail somehow escaped your mind didn't it. Those sorts of things always escape minds like yours.
Excuse me? So you say that any company with a patent that leads to a product with no competition it has to share that IP and license it to avoid anti competitive regulations? Do you feel this applies to such things as pharmaceuticals? Why do we have to wait until patents expire for generics! Surely following your assertions the minute there is a unique and mind blowingly great drug with patents up the kazoo they'd have to share it by licensing the formulae to the other drug companies ... Does this happen? I am no expert in these matters so I judge you not, I just want to understand this better. It seems to me using your thinking OS X should be out there licensed to all.
If you have a great invention unable to be work around, you are definitely granted a monopoly with respect to that patent for certain period of time. The Supreme Court has ruled that a patent holder has the right to a legal monopoly unless they act ?beyond the confines of the patent monopoly.?.In other words, a patent monopoly is perfectly acceptable so long as the monopoly only exists as to the patented invention and does not extend so far as to create a monopoly over a product or market.
For example , Samsung's 3G patents are such patents which will grant it a monopoly on 3G market.
Thanks, but can you equate 'essential' and 'unable to work-around'?
No, you cannot equate essential and unable to work around.
A patent unable to be worked around does not always grant you monopoly. For instance as of now Apple seems to have a monopoly on bouncing animation patent. But it is not something essential for device functionality. Tablet/Smart phone market exists even without it.
Really... "Before the iPad there weren't any tablets on the market"?
FACT: There were many tablets/MIDS on the market long before the iPad, most of which it happens to share many design elements, it's just that the iPad just made tablets more consumer friendly.
Awww.. you mean Apple is going to have to compete outside the courts this time? Poor Cupertino.
Apple does complete outside courts but they also protect there inventions. maybe if samsung made something that wasn't so ridiculously close to iPad that there own lawyers can't tell them apart they wouldn't have this trouble
Comments
Samsung is obviously copying Apple and deserves to be punished. Boycott them now and for a long time.
There is no better way to determine whether Samsung infringed on Apple's patents then the court.
The court has determine it does not.
Are you trying to go against the court here?
FACT : there was nothing like the ipad before the ipad. Tables were thick bloated hard ware devices because of running a bloated OS from Microsoft. tablets prior to the iPad had buttons and controls on the front bezel.
Once the iPad came out, all tables suddenly got real thin, did away with all buttons on the front bezel, adopted a touch input with no pen, adopted the iOS clone Android rather than a bloated Microsoft OS so they could ditch the super thick bloated hardware requirements of a bloated Microsoft OS.
FACT: There were no tablets in the sense the iPad revolutionized the tablet and redefined the term. After iPad, all tablets look like the iPad, coping its design and OS. And the courts are saying its okay for everyone to steal Apple's designs and copy everything they do. Thereby ensuring the future is free of innovation since as soon as Apple creates anything it will be cloned by Samesung and all the other cloners. And as history shows, no company other than Apple innovates anymore.
Your argument doesnt hold because it leave out the technology progress of miniaturization.
As time goes on, everything becomes smaller, cheaper and faster.
The same goes for tablets.
Mind showing the whole thing....here let me show you how this is nothing like the iPad. Or better yet, i will point you to this which debunks this fantasy... http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/0...e-was-no-ipad/
Apple's patent argument in court was only about the front.
I know you're a troll and your posts are absolutely ridiculous logic-wise most of the time, but this takes the cake.
How can a TV show from the 80's be "prior art" for anything other than other TV shows? You don't understand law at all do you?
Thanks for the laugh.
Google much?
This isn't talking about a TV show at all -- it was a conceptual design presentation from a tech firm that was looking for funding to build a tablet computer. By all appearances, a good deal of the ergonomic design work contributing to the "look and feel" of a functional tablet had already been conceived and fleshed out before the presentation was produced -- in 1994. David Hasselhoff has nothing at all to do with the suggested Knight Ridder prior art.
Since you seem unable to corroborate details for yourself, I'll save you the trouble:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...YEARS-OLD.html
I know you're a troll and your posts are absolutely ridiculous logic-wise most of the time, but this takes the cake.
How can a TV show from the 80's be "prior art" for anything other than other TV shows? You don't understand law at all do you?
Thanks for the laugh.
Think about this: What if a movie showed, for example, a bicycle that folded up so to be easy to carry, where nobody had ever thought of that before. Let's say that the movie included a scene where the mechanism is described and shown in detail.
Are you saying that somebody could run out and get a patent on that implementation? That there exists no prior art, despite the mechanism having been invented by the script writer and implemented by the prop master?
Hmmm?
Lets say my company puts out a new microwave. It is sleek and beautiful. It also performs quite well! Everyone wants one. I also take the time to patent the look and feel. Nobody challenges my patent so it goes through the patent office. That look is square...rectangle with a door with predefined buttons with cooking times preprogrammed and a light that comes on when you turn it on.
From this point forward....I will sue any other company that produces a microwave with the same look and feel of mine. My companies has very very deep pockets and has unlimited resources to litigate anyone that produces a microwave that is sleek and square with a door and light that comes on when you open it. All companies are threatened with lawsuits.
But this one company i sue because they aslo made a microwave with a square shape and door with a light and pre programmed cooking buttons. I sue that they violated the look and feel of my microwave. OHHH did I mention this company also makes parts for my product.....so it has become personal. I want to punish them. I feel betrayed. Other companies are producing the same microwave but I don't sue them.....only the company that i feel betrayed by.......
It's the head of Samsung's legal defense team!
Justice has been served.
No, it hasn't - no matter which side you're on.
We're a long way from a final decision in this matter.
I think that if any of the Apple utility patents were to be deemed essential (unable to work-around), then yes they might be required to license them.
"An essential patent is a patent which discloses and claims one or more inventions that are required to practice a given industry standard. [1] Standardisation bodies, therefore, often require members disclose and grant licenses to patents and pending patent applications that they own and that cover a standard that the body is developing. Failure to do so is a form of patent misuse.
If standards bodies fail to get licenses to all patents that are essential to practicing a standard, then the owners of those unlicensed patents can often demand royalties from those who ultimately adopt the standards. This is what happened, for example, to the GIF and JPEG standards."
You seem to be confusing the definition of the word "essential". A patent can be "essential" in terms of the ability to implement a particular feature, but the feature itself may not be "essential" to conforming to a recognized industry standard.
If the patent in question doesn't cover an application that is essential to implementing a technology that is regulated by a recognized standardization body, then that definition doesn't apply. For example, an essential feature of a cell phone is the ability to place a phone call. Patents related to interfacing with the latest GSM communication standards would be considered essential and would therefore be covered. But an extra feature, for example, to allow the cell phone to additionally prepare a fresh shot of espresso, would not necessarily covered.
So, I may have a patent that is essential to allowing a cell phone to produce a shot of espresso. It may be impossible for a cell phone to produce a shot of espresso unless they use the technology in my patent. But, because it isn't essential for a cell phone to produce an espresso in order to qualify as a cell phone, I wouldn't have any obligation to license that patent to anybody.
This is just a hearing on a preliminary injunction. To my feeble non-lawyer mind, it would have been more a negative for Samsung to lose than for Apple to lose. A preliminary injunction by definition (lawyers correct me if I am wrong) is an appeal to enjoin before the real trial. To get this a company needs to show that there is a preponderance of evidence in its favor - so much so that the court would enjoin prior to the actual trial. To grant one is almost the exception.
It seems to me that the judge here has said - "Not enough to go preliminary - Go have your day in court. If you can prove otherwise there - you will get a full injunction."
In that light I do not see it a a major loss. Once again, the press is blowing it out of proportion. (imho)
(Once again - any lawyers out there correct me if I am mistake.)
You're absolutely correct. In the U.S., a preliminary injunction is only ordered if the defendant is unable to make good any potential harm to the plaintiff. For example, let's say that the court thinks that there could be a final judgment of $10 B. If Samsung had the ability to pay $20 B without going bankrupt, there would be no injunction.
In addition, if the plaintiff could show that there would be irreparable harm (that is, harm that NO amount of money would fix), then the judge can order an injunction.
In this case, the judge did not rule on the merits of the case. She simply said that there's no danger of irreparable harm. That is, Samsung has enough money to pay any amount of damages that might conceivably be awarded.
Awww.. you mean Apple is going to have to compete outside the courts this time? Poor Cupertino.
I think Apple is competing just fine outside the courts.
Have you seen which tablets people are buying? It's not Samsung tablets... it's iPads.
And it gets worse... Not only can't Samsung make a tablet more desirable than the iPad... they also can't make one as cheap as the Kindle Fire.
Poor Samsung.
If we're talking about competition... Apple doesn't need to sue anybody. Apple is doing just fine.
This is a patent issue, however... and infringed patents need to be defended.
you are so correct! Apple has the tablet market pretty much to themselves. The sales figures of the ipad prove this fact. Sooo......how do do you prove harm from Samsung? You admit no other tablet maker has made a dent in iPad sales. Apple has the tablet market pretty much to themselves. So where is the damage to Apple?
I wasn't trying to get involved in this thread's main argument I was making an entirely different point. However, if my assertion is true that Android tablets suck sufficiently to fail all by themselves, it doesn't preclude Apple from protecting their IP in case a copy ever bacame a threat.
I think that if any of the Apple utility patents were to be deemed essential (unable to work-around), then yes they might be required to license them.
"An essential patent is a patent which discloses and claims one or more inventions that are required to practice a given industry standard. [1] Standardisation bodies, therefore, often require members disclose and grant licenses to patents and pending patent applications that they own and that cover a standard that the body is developing. Failure to do so is a form of patent misuse.
If standards bodies fail to get licenses to all patents that are essential to practicing a standard, then the owners of those unlicensed patents can often demand royalties from those who ultimately adopt the standards. This is what happened, for example, to the GIF and JPEG standards."
Thanks, but can you equate 'essential' and 'unable to work-around'?
Justice has been served.
There is no better way to determine whether Samsung infringed on Apple's patents then the court.
The court has determine it does not.
Are you trying to go against the court here?
The court has done no such thing. The only thing the court has done is to deny the request for an injunction on sales. If you had any kind of reading ability or comprehension you might have noticed the next paragraph in which Judge Koh says that Apple is, in fact, likely to prove that Samsung infringes at east one of Apple's patents. But that little detail somehow escaped your mind didn't it. Those sorts of things always escape minds like yours.
FACT??????? The idea of consumer tablet started in 1997 with http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/L...-Screen-Phone/
In 1997 tablets looked very different from today's iPad.
Excuse me? So you say that any company with a patent that leads to a product with no competition it has to share that IP and license it to avoid anti competitive regulations? Do you feel this applies to such things as pharmaceuticals? Why do we have to wait until patents expire for generics! Surely following your assertions the minute there is a unique and mind blowingly great drug with patents up the kazoo they'd have to share it by licensing the formulae to the other drug companies ... Does this happen? I am no expert in these matters so I judge you not, I just want to understand this better. It seems to me using your thinking OS X should be out there licensed to all.
If you have a great invention unable to be work around, you are definitely granted a monopoly with respect to that patent for certain period of time. The Supreme Court has ruled that a patent holder has the right to a legal monopoly unless they act ?beyond the confines of the patent monopoly.?.In other words, a patent monopoly is perfectly acceptable so long as the monopoly only exists as to the patented invention and does not extend so far as to create a monopoly over a product or market.
For example , Samsung's 3G patents are such patents which will grant it a monopoly on 3G market.
Thanks, but can you equate 'essential' and 'unable to work-around'?
No, you cannot equate essential and unable to work around.
A patent unable to be worked around does not always grant you monopoly. For instance as of now Apple seems to have a monopoly on bouncing animation patent. But it is not something essential for device functionality. Tablet/Smart phone market exists even without it.
I know you're a troll and your posts are absolutely ridiculous logic-wise most of the time, but this takes the cake.
How can a TV show from the 80's be "prior art" for anything other than other TV shows? You don't understand law at all do you?
Thanks for the laugh.
the television show is Knight Rider.
the Knight Ridder referenced by the courts is a media publishing company. Newspapers and such.
Learn the difference.
Really... "Before the iPad there weren't any tablets on the market"?
FACT: There were many tablets/MIDS on the market long before the iPad, most of which it happens to share many design elements, it's just that the iPad just made tablets more consumer friendly.
Fact. no one would confuse these for a iPad
Really?
Samsung Digital Photo Frame 2006.
Really?
Samsung = cheap plasticity knock off, thats why no one lines up for there products
Awww.. you mean Apple is going to have to compete outside the courts this time? Poor Cupertino.
Apple does complete outside courts but they also protect there inventions. maybe if samsung made something that wasn't so ridiculously close to iPad that there own lawyers can't tell them apart they wouldn't have this trouble
Awww.. you mean Apple is going to have to compete outside the courts this time? Poor Cupertino.
They aren't competing now? Fascinating.
And it's not about competing, it's about copying. I know for some it appears a subtle concept - but that says more about you than the issues at hand.