"Samsung has confirmed that it is working with Google to fend of patent infringement claims made by Apple, according toThe Korea Times. The announcement marks the first time that Samsung has confirmed it is receiving assistance from Google in its legal battle with Apple."
to this:
"An unnamed official with Samsung quoted by the Times as saying the company hopes it will be able to earn royalties from Apple"?
How do you get from fending off infringement claims together to earning royalties?
If every company litigated like Apple, one of two things would happen:
Nobody would have any electronic device, or
Patent reform would rapidly take place
The fact of the matter is that these types of patents are insane. Ask yourself these questions:
What if Ford patented the "tire" as we know it? What if they sued every manufacturer for using that form factor, asthetic, material, etc?
Imagine Nike patented the modern "shoe." To what extent does that cover any shoe? Sandals? Boots? Any type of footwear?
Ridiculous propositions, right? So are these. Patenting basic "concepts" is not the same as patenting specific algorithms, such as Apple's internal music-suggesting logic for iTunes, should they choose to patent that (for example).
"If every company litigated like Apple..."
You mean if every company defended their intellectual property?
Imagine all of the money that could have been saved all round if Samsung had just apologised for ripping Apple off in the first place and changed their icons/chargers/packaging and look off their phones.
The reason Google is helping now is they now own the Motorola IP portfolio which they can license to Samsung if they like which could in turn help them win their case.
They offered to help HTC before, and likely have been helping Samsung all along behind closed doors.
How do you get from fending off infringement claims together to earning royalties?
Imagine all of the patents held by the combined handset manufacturers as well as Google. Now imagine that all of them file IP lawsuits against Apple all at once for every patent they have.
Remember, Apple is the one of the offensive here. Google (and most of the rest) are only defending themselves. This is hypothetical to "What happens if everyone else turns on the offensive and goes against Apple?"
Maybe I'll get to say "Now Google has sued someone".
I still doubt it tho. This could be anything from a faulty translation to Google joining Samsung in filing a new suit. It will be intersting to see if the report is at all accurate and what it actually means. IMO Google is going to have to involve itself more strongly than it has so far, and sooner rather than later.
If you did not conveniently ignore the Motorola suits, you already could.
Read my examples and post that you agree, or that you don't agree. Specifically regarding tires and shoes.
You answer that, and I'll respond to you.
Here's a hint: There are many patents that cover tires and shoes. Also, comparison of tires or shoes to Apple's products is irrelevant. Patents covering basic phones have been around for many years, but Apple's phone is a computer that has phone function and all of the patents that require the application of FRAND are licensed by Apple and every other manufacturer.
If you did not conveniently ignore the Motorola suits, you already could.
If you weren't guessing as to who decided what you already would have acknowledged that it was Motorola that sued Apple, months before the purchase was approved. Google could not have as they did not own them. Come back with a real one and I'll tell you you're right. In the meantime be honest enough to admit I am.
Here's a hint: There are many patents that cover tires and shoes, look them up for yourself. Also, comparison of tires or shoes to Apple's products is irrelevant. Each invention is what it is.
Read my examples and post that you agree, or that you don't agree. Specifically regarding tires and shoes.
You answer that, and I'll respond to you.
The thing you forgot it that patents are only valid for a specific period of time. You are giving examples that cannot happen. Tires and shoes been around for centuries and therefore they cannot be patented. However, someone could patent a certain composite material that can be used in manufacturing shoes and tires. Or someone could patent a certain feature that makes shoes lighter or a certain tire patters that improve handling.
One of the advantages of patents is that your competitors will have to look for better alternatives. This is how innovations is expected to come with patents. However, the problem with patents now is what is called non-practicing entities.
Taking ideas and making them better does not automatically make it your property.
No, but taking an existing idea and patenting it makes it your property. Ideas cannot be owned. Patents can. Copyrights can. The undisclosed content of your mind is also your property.
The thing you forgot it that patents are only valid for a specific period of time. You are giving examples that cannot happen. Tires and shoes been around for centuries and therefore they cannot be patented. However, someone could patent a certain composite material that can be used in manufacturing shoes and tires. Or someone could patent a certain feature that makes shoes lighter or a certain tire patters that improve handling.
One of the advantages of patents is that your competitors will have to look for better alternatives. This is how innovations is expected to come with patents. However, the problem with patents now is what is called non-practicing entities.
Actually, a non-practicing entity that acquires patents to license, or in some cases shut out an infringing competitor, is legal and just a part of doing business. The time-limited monopoly aspect of patents is what makes them unique and highly sought after (depending on the nature of the patent, naturally). I don't agree with the "patent troll" moniker. The important part to remember about IP is that it is property and it can be used any way the owner wishes.
One of the advantages of patents is that your competitors will have to look for better alternatives. This is how innovations is expected to come with patents. However, the problem with patents now is what is called non-practicing entities.
Coupled with poor quality patents, coupled with a very high percentage that are found invalid in whole or part when challenged, coupled with the high cost to both get and keep one, coupled with. . .
Comments
How do you get from this:
"Samsung has confirmed that it is working with Google to fend of patent infringement claims made by Apple, according to The Korea Times. The announcement marks the first time that Samsung has confirmed it is receiving assistance from Google in its legal battle with Apple."
to this:
"An unnamed official with Samsung quoted by the Times as saying the company hopes it will be able to earn royalties from Apple"?
How do you get from fending off infringement claims together to earning royalties?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
The patent system is broken.
If every company litigated like Apple, one of two things would happen:
Nobody would have any electronic device, or
Patent reform would rapidly take place
The fact of the matter is that these types of patents are insane. Ask yourself these questions:
What if Ford patented the "tire" as we know it? What if they sued every manufacturer for using that form factor, asthetic, material, etc?
Imagine Nike patented the modern "shoe." To what extent does that cover any shoe? Sandals? Boots? Any type of footwear?
Ridiculous propositions, right? So are these. Patenting basic "concepts" is not the same as patenting specific algorithms, such as Apple's internal music-suggesting logic for iTunes, should they choose to patent that (for example).
"If every company litigated like Apple..."
You mean if every company defended their intellectual property?
Imagine all of the money that could have been saved all round if Samsung had just apologised for ripping Apple off in the first place and changed their icons/chargers/packaging and look off their phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
The reason Google is helping now is they now own the Motorola IP portfolio which they can license to Samsung if they like which could in turn help them win their case.
They offered to help HTC before, and likely have been helping Samsung all along behind closed doors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
"If every company litigated like Apple..."
You mean if every company defended their intellectual property?
Read my examples and post that you agree, or that you don't agree. Specifically regarding tires and shoes.
You answer that, and I'll respond to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
How do you get from fending off infringement claims together to earning royalties?
Imagine all of the patents held by the combined handset manufacturers as well as Google. Now imagine that all of them file IP lawsuits against Apple all at once for every patent they have.
Remember, Apple is the one of the offensive here. Google (and most of the rest) are only defending themselves. This is hypothetical to "What happens if everyone else turns on the offensive and goes against Apple?"
If you did not conveniently ignore the Motorola suits, you already could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
Read my examples and post that you agree, or that you don't agree. Specifically regarding tires and shoes.
You answer that, and I'll respond to you.
Here's a hint: There are many patents that cover tires and shoes. Also, comparison of tires or shoes to Apple's products is irrelevant. Patents covering basic phones have been around for many years, but Apple's phone is a computer that has phone function and all of the patents that require the application of FRAND are licensed by Apple and every other manufacturer.
Some tire patents (34,000+ results): http://www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&q=tires&btnG=#hl=en&safe=off&tbm=pts&sclient=psy-ab&q=rubber+tire&oq=rubber+tire&gs_l=serp.3..0l4.2231.3715.0.3958.11.9.0.2.2.0.226.1210.5j3j1.9.0...0.0.ImqTRJO_FcM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=72b5010e7e778aa2&biw=1322&bih=1223
Some shoe patents (34,000+ results): http://www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&q=tires&btnG=#hl=en&safe=off&tbm=pts&sclient=psy-ab&q=shoes&oq=shoes&gs_l=serp.3..0l4.46792.47984.1.48437.5.5.0.0.0.0.181.610.3j2.5.0...0.0.taimDco_d3M&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=72b5010e7e778aa2&biw=1322&bih=1223
You seem to be making the oldest error in the book that equates the "idea" of something being the same as a patent of something. Not at all the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
If you did not conveniently ignore the Motorola suits, you already could.
If you weren't guessing as to who decided what you already would have acknowledged that it was Motorola that sued Apple, months before the purchase was approved. Google could not have as they did not own them. Come back with a real one and I'll tell you you're right. In the meantime be honest enough to admit I am.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Here's a hint: There are many patents that cover tires and shoes, look them up for yourself. Also, comparison of tires or shoes to Apple's products is irrelevant. Each invention is what it is.
Way to dodge my question altogether.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
"If every company litigated like Apple..."
You mean if every company defended their intellectual property?
Taking ideas and making them better does not automatically make it your property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
Read my examples and post that you agree, or that you don't agree. Specifically regarding tires and shoes.
You answer that, and I'll respond to you.
The thing you forgot it that patents are only valid for a specific period of time. You are giving examples that cannot happen. Tires and shoes been around for centuries and therefore they cannot be patented. However, someone could patent a certain composite material that can be used in manufacturing shoes and tires. Or someone could patent a certain feature that makes shoes lighter or a certain tire patters that improve handling.
One of the advantages of patents is that your competitors will have to look for better alternatives. This is how innovations is expected to come with patents. However, the problem with patents now is what is called non-practicing entities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
Way to dodge my question altogether.
Look again. Also, you should be as capable as anyone to use Google to perform a search.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
Taking ideas and making them better does not automatically make it your property.
No, but taking an existing idea and patenting it makes it your property. Ideas cannot be owned. Patents can. Copyrights can. The undisclosed content of your mind is also your property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
Taking ideas and making them better does not automatically make it your property.
It makes the "better" part your property. Everyone else will need to find another way to get to the "better" part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
An unnamed official with Samsung quoted by the Times as saying the company hopes it will be able to earn royalties from Apple.
They already earn huge amounts of money from Apple. Billions of dollars a year.
But if this happened, heads would explode all across this site's user base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
The thing you forgot it that patents are only valid for a specific period of time. You are giving examples that cannot happen. Tires and shoes been around for centuries and therefore they cannot be patented. However, someone could patent a certain composite material that can be used in manufacturing shoes and tires. Or someone could patent a certain feature that makes shoes lighter or a certain tire patters that improve handling.
One of the advantages of patents is that your competitors will have to look for better alternatives. This is how innovations is expected to come with patents. However, the problem with patents now is what is called non-practicing entities.
Actually, a non-practicing entity that acquires patents to license, or in some cases shut out an infringing competitor, is legal and just a part of doing business. The time-limited monopoly aspect of patents is what makes them unique and highly sought after (depending on the nature of the patent, naturally). I don't agree with the "patent troll" moniker. The important part to remember about IP is that it is property and it can be used any way the owner wishes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web
Jobs... lent Schmidt credibility by gifting him a seat on Apple's board
It was not a gift. It was an appointment calculated to increase total profits. Apple gives no gifts - most especially seats on the BOD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I think you meant when an Angel raises his sword.
I thought it was "when you hear a bell ring, an angel gets his wings".
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
One of the advantages of patents is that your competitors will have to look for better alternatives. This is how innovations is expected to come with patents. However, the problem with patents now is what is called non-practicing entities.
Coupled with poor quality patents, coupled with a very high percentage that are found invalid in whole or part when challenged, coupled with the high cost to both get and keep one, coupled with. . .