That makes no sense. Samsung doesn't get off the hook just because Google created Android. Perhaps Samsung should have insisted on legal indemnification before shipping these phones*.
*Not that it would completely help since it was Samsung's bright idea to mimic Apple's packaging and create Touchwhiz
Google has (at least belatedly) shown they will step in to assist if they're needed by a licensee. The best example is Google requesting to be added as a defendant in Nokia's IP suit against HTC.
I wasn't being at all obtuse. What about Apple's legal strategy so far makes you believe there's any subtlety involved, that they're "holding back"?
Only everything. Like the fact they only bring a few patents to the table when they launch a case or the fact they pick different patents against different offenders even though they could use the same.
They also can't bring everything at once because no court would allow for such a complex trial with so many things to consider. Apple (and others) have been told by judges before to "trim" their cases down to make them more managebale.
Apple is testing the waters and with each court victory they end up with a patent that's far more valuable as it's been "battle tested", so to speak.
To all of you: think back to 2005, 2006 and 2007. Where were Apple then? Success? In the mobile phones market? The court hearings are not about today!
They had a extremely popular mobile device called the iPod. Manufacturing a device that was a cell phone plus an iPod (and it turned out to be so much more) was sure to be a success.
Google has (at least belatedly) shown they will step in to assist if they're needed by a licensee. The best example is Google requesting to be added as a defendant in Nokia's IP suit against HTC.
In the case of Samsung, Google tried to convince Sammy to make design changes to avoid this lawsuit. I think they're on their own for now.
Google is trying to come to handset makers' aid now (you forgot to mention Google buying patents and trying to gift them to others like HTC), but Google made it clear in the beginning that they were not going to be held liable. That should give any business person pause.
But so far, most of Apple's tactical strikes have fizzled into duds.
I wouldn't say that. They forced vendors to drop features like overscroll bounce or data tapping. Several versions of the GSIII have also received updates to remove universal search.
If Apple keeps this up they'll get what they want - removal of several key features that make the iPhone different.
Samsung is essentially saying "we evaluated all these prototypes that look nothing like the iPhone and could easily have released a phone that did not mimic the iPhone so exactly, but we chose not to because of Apple's success, so we chose a phone that looks nearly identical to the iPhone. Nice job making Apple's case.
I laughed out loud when I read this. Keep up the good work, JR!
. . . The really, really, obvious, intuitive gestures like pinch to zoom however were already in use for a long period beforehand so really simple stuff like that can be used by anyone (at least until the patent is asserted, challenged, and ruled on).
Maybe, but Apple was pretty smart about going back and buying a lot of early IP from several sources (like FingerWorks.) I don't know, but quite probably Apple may well own the most strategically relevant and advantageous prior art.
Maybe, but Apple was pretty smart about going back and buying a lot of early IP from several sources (like FingerWorks.) I don't know, but quite probably Apple may well own the most strategically relevant and advantageous prior art.
They had a extremely popular mobile device called the iPod. Manufacturing a device that was a cell phone plus an iPod (and it turned out to be so much more) was sure to be a success.
Of course it was "sure to be a success". By the benefit of hindsight.
Because this is the how universe works, except perhaps for the Big Bang but you'll have to ask Dick Applebaum about that. Apparently his ears are still ringing from it. :D
Nah! But I know a guy that dated her in high school! Eins, zwei, g'suffa.
Once again Apple's legal team takes shortcuts and alters things to suit their needs. First off we all know that product designs can take 18-24 months from creation to launch and the I700 (silver phone lower right corner pre-iPhone) was a 2003 launch so saying it was a 2005 phone is way off. They of course are selectively showing Samsung Windows Phones at the time which Android did not exist and thus their focus was dictated based on technology trends at the time. Android came along and was focused on touch based input so designs evolved over time. One thing is for sure a lot of HTC, Dell, Palm, Motorola etc. devices evolved as well.
And, once again, there are two sides in every lawsuit. If Apple is stretching the truth then the other side will have ample opportunity to address that. There's no bullying here, it's a fair fight.
I wouldn't say that. They forced vendors to drop features like overscroll bounce or data tapping. Several versions of the GSIII have also received updates to remove universal search.
If Apple keeps this up they'll get what they want - removal of several key features that make the iPhone different.
More importantly, the competition is backing away from the blatant copies of Apple products. Put the original Tab next to the iPad of its time. It was so close that even their attorneys couldn't tell the difference and the largest reason for returns at Best Buy was people who thought they were buying an iPad. Now, after all the lawsuits, look at the Galaxy SIII next to the iPhone - Samsung has stopped the near-exact copies.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
Packaging can't be patented, unless it is part of a product. The logo's on the packaging can be trademarked, but not patented.
Packaging is a part of trade dress which is included in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh
That makes no sense. Samsung doesn't get off the hook just because Google created Android. Perhaps Samsung should have insisted on legal indemnification before shipping these phones*.
*Not that it would completely help since it was Samsung's bright idea to mimic Apple's packaging and create Touchwhiz
Google has (at least belatedly) shown they will step in to assist if they're needed by a licensee. The best example is Google requesting to be added as a defendant in Nokia's IP suit against HTC.
http://www.mobilemode.com/a/News/Android/Google-Wants-To-Co-Defend-HTC-Against-Nokia-In-Patent-Lawsu.html#.UBhB06U7WAg
In the case of Samsung, Google tried to convince Sammy to make design changes to avoid this lawsuit. I think they're on their own for now.
samsung has blatantly copied apple from the devices look & feel itself to its accessories & packaging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I wasn't being at all obtuse. What about Apple's legal strategy so far makes you believe there's any subtlety involved, that they're "holding back"?
Only everything. Like the fact they only bring a few patents to the table when they launch a case or the fact they pick different patents against different offenders even though they could use the same.
They also can't bring everything at once because no court would allow for such a complex trial with so many things to consider. Apple (and others) have been told by judges before to "trim" their cases down to make them more managebale.
Apple is testing the waters and with each court victory they end up with a patent that's far more valuable as it's been "battle tested", so to speak.
They had a extremely popular mobile device called the iPod. Manufacturing a device that was a cell phone plus an iPod (and it turned out to be so much more) was sure to be a success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Apple's not playing chess. It's thermonuclear war.
But so far, most of Apple's tactical strikes have fizzled into duds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Google has (at least belatedly) shown they will step in to assist if they're needed by a licensee. The best example is Google requesting to be added as a defendant in Nokia's IP suit against HTC.
http://www.mobilemode.com/a/News/Android/Google-Wants-To-Co-Defend-HTC-Against-Nokia-In-Patent-Lawsu.html#.UBhB06U7WAg
In the case of Samsung, Google tried to convince Sammy to make design changes to avoid this lawsuit. I think they're on their own for now.
Google is trying to come to handset makers' aid now (you forgot to mention Google buying patents and trying to gift them to others like HTC), but Google made it clear in the beginning that they were not going to be held liable. That should give any business person pause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
But so far, most of Apple's tactical strikes have fizzled into duds.
I wouldn't say that. They forced vendors to drop features like overscroll bounce or data tapping. Several versions of the GSIII have also received updates to remove universal search.
If Apple keeps this up they'll get what they want - removal of several key features that make the iPhone different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
It's actually worse.
Samsung is essentially saying "we evaluated all these prototypes that look nothing like the iPhone and could easily have released a phone that did not mimic the iPhone so exactly, but we chose not to because of Apple's success, so we chose a phone that looks nearly identical to the iPhone. Nice job making Apple's case.
I laughed out loud when I read this. Keep up the good work, JR!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
and packaging
And the wire that connects it to the wall socket!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
.... but as far as no name and no credibility, I don't buy it.
Of course you don't. What a surprise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
. . . The really, really, obvious, intuitive gestures like pinch to zoom however were already in use for a long period beforehand so really simple stuff like that can be used by anyone (at least until the patent is asserted, challenged, and ruled on).
Maybe, but Apple was pretty smart about going back and buying a lot of early IP from several sources (like FingerWorks.) I don't know, but quite probably Apple may well own the most strategically relevant and advantageous prior art.
It seems that way to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
They had a extremely popular mobile device called the iPod. Manufacturing a device that was a cell phone plus an iPod (and it turned out to be so much more) was sure to be a success.
Of course it was "sure to be a success". By the benefit of hindsight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Because this is the how universe works, except perhaps for the Big Bang but you'll have to ask Dick Applebaum about that. Apparently his ears are still ringing from it. :D
Nah! But I know a guy that dated her in high school! Eins, zwei, g'suffa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7
Once again Apple's legal team takes shortcuts and alters things to suit their needs. First off we all know that product designs can take 18-24 months from creation to launch and the I700 (silver phone lower right corner pre-iPhone) was a 2003 launch so saying it was a 2005 phone is way off. They of course are selectively showing Samsung Windows Phones at the time which Android did not exist and thus their focus was dictated based on technology trends at the time. Android came along and was focused on touch based input so designs evolved over time. One thing is for sure a lot of HTC, Dell, Palm, Motorola etc. devices evolved as well.
And, once again, there are two sides in every lawsuit. If Apple is stretching the truth then the other side will have ample opportunity to address that. There's no bullying here, it's a fair fight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Of course it was "sure to be a success". By the benefit of hindsight.
Especially since the original iphone looked exactly like an ipod with a click wheel for the rotary dialer. Oh wait. . .
More importantly, the competition is backing away from the blatant copies of Apple products. Put the original Tab next to the iPad of its time. It was so close that even their attorneys couldn't tell the difference and the largest reason for returns at Best Buy was people who thought they were buying an iPad. Now, after all the lawsuits, look at the Galaxy SIII next to the iPhone - Samsung has stopped the near-exact copies.
He should've written it "when one goes thermonuclear war they get themselves blown up as well"