I never understand the "this stifles innovation" argument. No, it doesn't.
Let's say Apple has patented a method to achieve a desired result. If Samsung wants to do something similar and get a similar result without infringing Apple's patent they would have to innovate and come up with their own solution.
Patents don't stifle innovation, they encourage it.
If you see it differently, please explain. I truly never understand that line of argument.
There's nothing to understand. You're spot on. It's the "stifles innovation" crowd that inhabits la-la land.
I'm not going to get into an online argument over something as petty as this and I don't need to prove anything. The information is out there for all to see, do your own research (and preferably on sites that are truly impartial). I'm not going to defend either side because they're both at fault but if you think that one side developed a technology/feature/method that is truly unique and retains the obligation to be defended in this way then you're being naive.
You simply have no evidence. That's the bottom line. Move along.
Is it not obvious from the text of the AI article!?
What did Apple get the current injunctions for? Has Samsung implemented something different in S3 compared to the S on those?
The article lists the patents for the claim but they seem not to be that effective if they aren't glaringly obvious. I'm guessing that the SIII will not suffer the same fate as the Galaxy Tab 10.1
You simply have no evidence. That's the bottom line. Move along.
I'm simply not going to take on "your" responsibilities as a consumer. But if ignoring the facts because someone doesn't post "proof" in a biased forum makes you feel better then so be it.
Why is this even being mentioned because it's not going to happen. Apple won't be able to stop the Galaxy S III from being sold. And even if they did temporarily, it would probably be easy enough for Samsung or Google to make whatever changes are necessary in a relatively short time. I'm willing to bet that most users wouldn't even care if changes were made.
Yeah and weren't you one of the ones who said Apple would never get an injunction against the Tab and Nexus?
The fact is that the SIII uses the same features as the Nexus, so it's not at all improbably that the injunction will be extended to cover the SIII.
Or not in this case as it is a tech issue and not a design one.
The only way for Samsung to quickly get out of this would have been to agree that said tech was part of Android that Google created, not them. So Apple should be suing Google not them. But that time has passed.
Agreeing that the tech was in Google wouldn't help them. They're still selling it.
The article lists the patents for the claim but they seem not to be that effective if they aren't glaringly obvious. I'm guessing that the SIII will not suffer the same fate as the Galaxy Tab 10.1
The injunctions are based on a Siri patent, that the SIII also infringes on. So, if the judge issued an injunction on the Galaxy tabs, she should issue it on the SIII as well.
What evidence or argument do you have to back up that conjecture? Because the hardware of the S3 looks different?
No, common sense.
It's obvious Apple has been particularly aggressive on "look and feel" design patents both here and in Europe, apparently in the belief it was their fastest way to an injunction. I'd be darn surprised if Samsung wants to risk any more product delays when it's fairly easy to avoid one.
As for the utility patents, there's not a lot that can be done. Based on IP case averages it's highly unlikely that all four patents that Apple is asserting in this case will hold up to review in their entirety. And again, based on patent litigation averages, there's over a 90% chance that the patent office will find compelling reasons why some or all of these may not have been properly vetted and approved in the first place and order reexaminations.
So now it becomes do they remove functions simply because Apple received a patent that they may believe won't survive re-exam, but risk an injunction in the meantime? Requesting and completing a patent reexamination is time-consuming. I personally don't think Samsung believed a court would bar any of their products on the basis of those particular patents. I'm reasonably sure even Apple, with the experienced legal teams they are using, expects them to be narrowed with a possibility of even being deemed invalid in whole over the course of this litigation. They do seem especially broad and non-specific to me but I'm no software engineer. It's a sticky situation.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravage
Lawsuits: Because innovating and competing is just too hard.
Well hey, as long as it's cheaper to use government to shut down your competition than have to actually compete with them, why not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/09/28/no-comment-proof-that-samsung-shamelessly-copies-apple/
This kills me every time!
Quote:
Originally Posted by IHateScreenNames
I never understand the "this stifles innovation" argument. No, it doesn't.
Let's say Apple has patented a method to achieve a desired result. If Samsung wants to do something similar and get a similar result without infringing Apple's patent they would have to innovate and come up with their own solution.
Patents don't stifle innovation, they encourage it.
If you see it differently, please explain. I truly never understand that line of argument.
There's nothing to understand. You're spot on. It's the "stifles innovation" crowd that inhabits la-la land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
What about the SIII is Samsung copying? What could Apple feasibly get an injunction for?
Is it not obvious from the text of the AI article!?
What did Apple get the current injunctions for? Has Samsung implemented something different in S3 compared to the S on those?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I think most of that copying will be past-tense now.
What evidence or argument do you have to back up that conjecture? Because the hardware of the S3 looks different?
Apple has over $100B in cash, so no worries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrakaJap
I'm not going to get into an online argument over something as petty as this and I don't need to prove anything. The information is out there for all to see, do your own research (and preferably on sites that are truly impartial). I'm not going to defend either side because they're both at fault but if you think that one side developed a technology/feature/method that is truly unique and retains the obligation to be defended in this way then you're being naive.
You simply have no evidence. That's the bottom line. Move along.
btw Dr. Evil was Austin Powers' menace (and 10x funnier).
The article lists the patents for the claim but they seem not to be that effective if they aren't glaringly obvious. I'm guessing that the SIII will not suffer the same fate as the Galaxy Tab 10.1
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
You simply have no evidence. That's the bottom line. Move along.
I'm simply not going to take on "your" responsibilities as a consumer. But if ignoring the facts because someone doesn't post "proof" in a biased forum makes you feel better then so be it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
It's the same with all companies.
Not true. Lots of companies like to license. Microsoft for instance.
Yeah and weren't you one of the ones who said Apple would never get an injunction against the Tab and Nexus?
The fact is that the SIII uses the same features as the Nexus, so it's not at all improbably that the injunction will be extended to cover the SIII.
Agreeing that the tech was in Google wouldn't help them. They're still selling it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The article lists the patents for the claim but they seem not to be that effective if they aren't glaringly obvious. I'm guessing that the SIII will not suffer the same fate as the Galaxy Tab 10.1
The injunctions are based on a Siri patent, that the SIII also infringes on. So, if the judge issued an injunction on the Galaxy tabs, she should issue it on the SIII as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
What evidence or argument do you have to back up that conjecture? Because the hardware of the S3 looks different?
No, common sense.
It's obvious Apple has been particularly aggressive on "look and feel" design patents both here and in Europe, apparently in the belief it was their fastest way to an injunction. I'd be darn surprised if Samsung wants to risk any more product delays when it's fairly easy to avoid one.
As for the utility patents, there's not a lot that can be done. Based on IP case averages it's highly unlikely that all four patents that Apple is asserting in this case will hold up to review in their entirety. And again, based on patent litigation averages, there's over a 90% chance that the patent office will find compelling reasons why some or all of these may not have been properly vetted and approved in the first place and order reexaminations.
So now it becomes do they remove functions simply because Apple received a patent that they may believe won't survive re-exam, but risk an injunction in the meantime? Requesting and completing a patent reexamination is time-consuming. I personally don't think Samsung believed a court would bar any of their products on the basis of those particular patents. I'm reasonably sure even Apple, with the experienced legal teams they are using, expects them to be narrowed with a possibility of even being deemed invalid in whole over the course of this litigation. They do seem especially broad and non-specific to me but I'm no software engineer. It's a sticky situation.
This has been making the rounds in social networks:
And one wonders why I don't use social networking…
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru
This has been making the rounds in social networks:
Kind of similar but I'm guessing the iPhone design was finalized before the Samsung unveiling.
EDIT - Actually, Wikipedia tells me this phone wasn't unveiled until February 2008.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcstarheel
Kind of similar but I'm guessing the iPhone design was finalized before the Samsung unveiling.
But who got the patent on the design first?
According to Wikipedia, Samsung filed a design patent for the F700 in 2006.