Find it as offensive as you want. The American companies aren't stealing IP from the South Korean companies. And, please, let's not pretend that South Korea hasn't benefited enormously from American blood and money, that's offensive. Not rather offensive, disgustingly offensive, sickeningly offensive.
Did you serve? Did you give you time, sweat and blood to the protection of another country? I know I did. I served in South Korea and even volunteered to stay additional tours (don't forget the disabled Vet part thanks to a back injury). So don't play the "offended victim BS card". The people there are just like anyone else. I have seen just as many jerks in the U.S. as Korea. Many of these patents shouldn't have been given in the first place, and some should have. Slide to open...BS...prior art exists. Pinch to zoom....prior art exists....more BS. Rubberbanding...probably okay. Tap to zoom....yes....Samsung, pay up. But banning the SIII sounds like nothing but an attempt to use the courts to kill competition...and this goes for Korea possibly banning iPhone sales. This is the kind of nonsense we don't need.
I agree, but not "purely due".... Companies like Samsung (leader), with the business plan of copying and not just beening similar, but out right copying. was a good percentage of the reason for Sony fall from the top. The difference with Apple is upper management have the balls and a big big cash reserve to fight back Samsung tactics. This fight is not just about current wrongs but to prevent future blatant copying. Don't get me wrong they all including apple "borrow" from each other but it becomes a different story when someone just copy.
This is no different from the Japanese taking an idea created elsewhere (1950s-1980s as an example - but all throughout their history to be more precise) and greatly improving upon it at a lower cost. Korea simple did the same thing in modern times at an even lower cost. That isn't copying/stealing IP. Samsung/LG/etc didn't steal Sony's ideas or IP. They simply made a better TV at a lower cost - go economies of scale. Same thing with Netflix killing off Blockbuster...and now Netflix feeling the heat. No different that Apple copying (not stealing IP) the idea of a portable mp3 player from Creative and making a better version of it. The hubris part regarding Sony has to deal with Sony not wanting to get into the digital music market at the time (wanting too much control for one thing - ATRAC - and believing no one else could take the portable music scene from them) therefore leaving the door open for Apple. Sony makes some fantastic mp3 players (the good ones never make it to the US...what is the point now?) which sound so much better than anything Apple has to offer...but they are too expensive compared to iPods. People don't care about sound quality anymore, they care about accessibility, ease of use and low price. I am just as guilty of that. I gave up on importing Sony mp3 players because the sound quality on the iPod was "good enough for government work".
All of the ignorant people who defend Samsung have chosen their path, and their path is one of ignorance and one that follows the dark side.
So those who buy Samsung TVs, Samsung washer and dryers, buy oil tankers built by Samsung, buy insurance from Samsung (do you realize how big the Samsung family of companies really is?), etc... all are ignorant and follow an evil path. Tone down the BS hyperbole.
If it's so trivial to get around the patents, why hasn't anyone done so? Some estimates say that Samsung spent well over $50 M on legal expenses for the California case (not counting the $1 B in fines). So why didn't they simply work around the patents if it was so easy?
The most likely scenario is that it's not as easy as you and all the other Samsung shills claim.
The other possibility is that even if they can work around the patents, they believe it will cost them more in lost sales than their paid shill army claims. Clearly, it would have SOME impact since so many Tab tablets were returned to Best Buy when people found out that they weren't iPads (by Samsung's own testimony).
So, again, if it's trivial to get around the patents and it wouldn't cost Samsung any business, why haven't they done so?
In the REAL world, though, there is ample evidence that Samsung's blatant copying was done intentionally with the hope of confusing the market and obtaining more sales than they would have otherwise. Their rapid growth in market share while all of the other competitors (who weren't as obvious about copying Apple) confirms that.
Shills, really? JHFC the stupidity.
More likely Samsung didn't feel that those patents deserved to be awarded. I believe several of those patents will be invalidated due to prior art. As mentioned by others these patents complaints are holding up so well for Apple in countries other than the U.S. The US only has about 400 million people. While Apple may win a case in a court a few miles from the company by people who want to support the U.S. over foreign companies (don't tell me that didn't play a role - that is what happens in such a case in the U.S. - the local company is usually supported) but that won't change the fact that the U.S. only accounts for about 6% of the world population. Samsung will be just fine no matter how much Apple rages...
Good points. Furthermore, it's well documented that Ive didn't come up with the click wheel concept himself. It was Phil Schiller's idea. And he isn't quite the Braun devotee that Ive is.
That was a Braun portable radio, not a thermostat.
You can. Just set them up as one of your 5 authorized computers.
Apple doesn't have to allow unlimited distribution. In fact, it's pretty obvious that the record labels would never go for unlimited distribution.
Willis is an idiot. It's no different than buying one of his DVDs. You own the physical media (the DVD in one case and the computer hard drive in the other) and only get the rights that are granted to you under the license. In both cases, that does not include the right to copy nor does it include the right to play the item in public.
And if Willis' lawyer takes the case, he should be immediately disbarred for incompetence. If he can't see that the two situations are nearly the same, he has no business practicing law.
BUT...the law does allow the sale and resale of used CDs as well as passing them on to someone else after death. That is NOT the same as distribution...there is only one copy. Using that reasoning, he should be able to pass on the rights of those songs to his kids when he dies. Whether is be a physical CD or a file (still physical) he should be able to pass them on....except the RIAA and Apple want to stop this so that people are forced to buy new songs. Maybe if all our CDs and DVDs had to be destroyed when we passed this would make sense. As it is....it is just money grubbing.
Yes, Samsung, we've seen the "slander the jury foreman" angle from you before. It didn't fly then, it won't fly now. You are thieves without honor.
Here's what Mr. Hogan said regarding prior art:
The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.
Interchangeability is not a requirement for prior art to invalidate a patent. Is there something else that needs to be explained?
Also, cute how you addressed me as Samsung, though I have absolutely no affiliation with the company, whatsoever.
So, as you yourself point out, it's not just design patents that Samsung is infringing. And it wasn't just design patents they were found to infringe. So, it seems entirely logical that they would be banned for violating Apple's utility patents, which the size of the device has no bearing on. What you've listed above are simply 4 additional utility patents that Apple has added to the complaint. Seems like another slam dunk.
My question is this: Does a patent stop anyone from making the same product or a similar product. Example? Does this mean that NOBODY can every use word completion software for the next almost 20 years since Apple has the patent on it....OR...does it mean that a competitor cannot steal the code and use it in their device? If someone writes DIFFERENT code to accomplish the same word completion action are they at risk?
This is the problem with software patents. I could patent a shovel DESIGN that no one else could manufacture, but others can make another shovel (that still digs just fine) that looks different and I cannot sue them. So, how is this different from (example) word completion software? Wouldn't someone else just need to do it in a different way to accomplish the same goal? As it stands Apple claims NO ONE can use word completion software (as an example). This seems to be a misuse of the patent system...a system that WAS NOT designed with software patents in mind. Many of these patents Apple is complaining about look like they should be FRAND patents. Everyone should be able to add a word completion capability to their phones and computers. IF Apple can prove they were the first to invent this idea, they deserve to be paid a fair rate (FRAND), but not some astronomical figure of $30 - $40 a phone. Crazy.
Look at Samsung and Sony TVs. The new ones have powerful new features...run by a menuing system. The menus are different but accomplish the same thing. Steering wheels...different appearance, but the same capabilities. No company should be able to ban the sales of other devices for such an infraction. Make them pay a REASONABLE licensing fee, sure. If Apple (and others) can stop others from using (same example) word completion...then they are limiting the choice of the customer: Use Apple products if you are lazy and cannot spell....or use EVERYONE else's devices and suck it up - type it all out and get an education ...you...you...non-errr..nonn-spellar...you.
My question is this: Does a patent stop anyone from making the same product or a similar product. Example? Does this mean that NOBODY can every use word completion software for the next almost 20 years since Apple has the patent on it....OR...does it mean that a competitor cannot steal the code and use it in their device? If someone writes DIFFERENT code to accomplish the same word completion action are they at risk?
Either way the code is actually protected by copyright, not a software patent. The implementation (often more of a concept) is what is patented. If you read one of these, they contain an extensive description of how such a thing may be used at times. If you want to know what is protected, look for where it says, "What is claimed is..".
Apple didn't need lawyers for a North California jury, only someone to chant: USA, USA, USA
You'd prefer an American lawsuit to take place in a different country?
So if you committed a crime in the US, you'd want to be tried in… European court. Or somewhere that sharia law is used. You think that works out, then?
You'd prefer an American lawsuit to take place in a different country?
So if you committed a crime in the US, you'd want to be tried in… European court. Or somewhere that sharia law is used. You think that works out, then?
If the concern was that an unbiased trial could not be held in Northern California, Samsung could have filed a request for a change of venue. I never read a request for one. My biggest issue on here is that people determine fairness by whether they're happy with a verdict. I only care how the process was carried out, and yes the jury was stupid in this regard. I don't have an issue with their conclusion. They did make mistakes on how things work. They never asked questions. There's no way to read through and discuss that much material in three days. They most likely just wanted to get back to their normal lives. It's also not just on the foreman. It's a collective failure when you believe someone without asking questions, although I don't know if that will be the thing that drags out the appeals process.
Worry about the guys that stole intellectual property and corporate secrets from them? The guys who, when they sue Apple, will wind up in jail and their companies and families bankrupted? Why?
Comments
We can only imagine the number of new nonsense lawsuits Apple will brew up, all thanks to a jury foreman who didn't understand prior art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
We can only imagine the number of new nonsense lawsuits Apple will brew up, all thanks to a jury foreman who didn't understand prior art.
Yes, Samsung, we've seen the "slander the jury foreman" angle from you before. It didn't fly then, it won't fly now. You are thieves without honor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Find it as offensive as you want. The American companies aren't stealing IP from the South Korean companies. And, please, let's not pretend that South Korea hasn't benefited enormously from American blood and money, that's offensive. Not rather offensive, disgustingly offensive, sickeningly offensive.
Did you serve? Did you give you time, sweat and blood to the protection of another country? I know I did. I served in South Korea and even volunteered to stay additional tours (don't forget the disabled Vet part thanks to a back injury). So don't play the "offended victim BS card". The people there are just like anyone else. I have seen just as many jerks in the U.S. as Korea. Many of these patents shouldn't have been given in the first place, and some should have. Slide to open...BS...prior art exists. Pinch to zoom....prior art exists....more BS. Rubberbanding...probably okay. Tap to zoom....yes....Samsung, pay up. But banning the SIII sounds like nothing but an attempt to use the courts to kill competition...and this goes for Korea possibly banning iPhone sales. This is the kind of nonsense we don't need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahblade
I agree, but not "purely due".... Companies like Samsung (leader), with the business plan of copying and not just beening similar, but out right copying. was a good percentage of the reason for Sony fall from the top. The difference with Apple is upper management have the balls and a big big cash reserve to fight back Samsung tactics. This fight is not just about current wrongs but to prevent future blatant copying. Don't get me wrong they all including apple "borrow" from each other but it becomes a different story when someone just copy.
This is no different from the Japanese taking an idea created elsewhere (1950s-1980s as an example - but all throughout their history to be more precise) and greatly improving upon it at a lower cost. Korea simple did the same thing in modern times at an even lower cost. That isn't copying/stealing IP. Samsung/LG/etc didn't steal Sony's ideas or IP. They simply made a better TV at a lower cost - go economies of scale. Same thing with Netflix killing off Blockbuster...and now Netflix feeling the heat. No different that Apple copying (not stealing IP) the idea of a portable mp3 player from Creative and making a better version of it. The hubris part regarding Sony has to deal with Sony not wanting to get into the digital music market at the time (wanting too much control for one thing - ATRAC - and believing no one else could take the portable music scene from them) therefore leaving the door open for Apple. Sony makes some fantastic mp3 players (the good ones never make it to the US...what is the point now?) which sound so much better than anything Apple has to offer...but they are too expensive compared to iPods. People don't care about sound quality anymore, they care about accessibility, ease of use and low price. I am just as guilty of that. I gave up on importing Sony mp3 players because the sound quality on the iPod was "good enough for government work".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
All of the ignorant people who defend Samsung have chosen their path, and their path is one of ignorance and one that follows the dark side.
So those who buy Samsung TVs, Samsung washer and dryers, buy oil tankers built by Samsung, buy insurance from Samsung (do you realize how big the Samsung family of companies really is?), etc... all are ignorant and follow an evil path. Tone down the BS hyperbole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
If it's so trivial to get around the patents, why hasn't anyone done so? Some estimates say that Samsung spent well over $50 M on legal expenses for the California case (not counting the $1 B in fines). So why didn't they simply work around the patents if it was so easy?
The most likely scenario is that it's not as easy as you and all the other Samsung shills claim.
The other possibility is that even if they can work around the patents, they believe it will cost them more in lost sales than their paid shill army claims. Clearly, it would have SOME impact since so many Tab tablets were returned to Best Buy when people found out that they weren't iPads (by Samsung's own testimony).
So, again, if it's trivial to get around the patents and it wouldn't cost Samsung any business, why haven't they done so?
In the REAL world, though, there is ample evidence that Samsung's blatant copying was done intentionally with the hope of confusing the market and obtaining more sales than they would have otherwise. Their rapid growth in market share while all of the other competitors (who weren't as obvious about copying Apple) confirms that.
Shills, really? JHFC the stupidity.
More likely Samsung didn't feel that those patents deserved to be awarded. I believe several of those patents will be invalidated due to prior art. As mentioned by others these patents complaints are holding up so well for Apple in countries other than the U.S. The US only has about 400 million people. While Apple may win a case in a court a few miles from the company by people who want to support the U.S. over foreign companies (don't tell me that didn't play a role - that is what happens in such a case in the U.S. - the local company is usually supported) but that won't change the fact that the U.S. only accounts for about 6% of the world population. Samsung will be just fine no matter how much Apple rages...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
Good points. Furthermore, it's well documented that Ive didn't come up with the click wheel concept himself. It was Phil Schiller's idea. And he isn't quite the Braun devotee that Ive is.
That was a Braun portable radio, not a thermostat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You can. Just set them up as one of your 5 authorized computers.
Apple doesn't have to allow unlimited distribution. In fact, it's pretty obvious that the record labels would never go for unlimited distribution.
Willis is an idiot. It's no different than buying one of his DVDs. You own the physical media (the DVD in one case and the computer hard drive in the other) and only get the rights that are granted to you under the license. In both cases, that does not include the right to copy nor does it include the right to play the item in public.
And if Willis' lawyer takes the case, he should be immediately disbarred for incompetence. If he can't see that the two situations are nearly the same, he has no business practicing law.
BUT...the law does allow the sale and resale of used CDs as well as passing them on to someone else after death. That is NOT the same as distribution...there is only one copy. Using that reasoning, he should be able to pass on the rights of those songs to his kids when he dies. Whether is be a physical CD or a file (still physical) he should be able to pass them on....except the RIAA and Apple want to stop this so that people are forced to buy new songs. Maybe if all our CDs and DVDs had to be destroyed when we passed this would make sense. As it is....it is just money grubbing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Yes, Samsung, we've seen the "slander the jury foreman" angle from you before. It didn't fly then, it won't fly now. You are thieves without honor.
Here's what Mr. Hogan said regarding prior art:
The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.
Interchangeability is not a requirement for prior art to invalidate a patent. Is there something else that needs to be explained?
Also, cute how you addressed me as Samsung, though I have absolutely no affiliation with the company, whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
So, as you yourself point out, it's not just design patents that Samsung is infringing. And it wasn't just design patents they were found to infringe. So, it seems entirely logical that they would be banned for violating Apple's utility patents, which the size of the device has no bearing on. What you've listed above are simply 4 additional utility patents that Apple has added to the complaint. Seems like another slam dunk.
My question is this: Does a patent stop anyone from making the same product or a similar product. Example? Does this mean that NOBODY can every use word completion software for the next almost 20 years since Apple has the patent on it....OR...does it mean that a competitor cannot steal the code and use it in their device? If someone writes DIFFERENT code to accomplish the same word completion action are they at risk?
This is the problem with software patents. I could patent a shovel DESIGN that no one else could manufacture, but others can make another shovel (that still digs just fine) that looks different and I cannot sue them. So, how is this different from (example) word completion software? Wouldn't someone else just need to do it in a different way to accomplish the same goal? As it stands Apple claims NO ONE can use word completion software (as an example). This seems to be a misuse of the patent system...a system that WAS NOT designed with software patents in mind. Many of these patents Apple is complaining about look like they should be FRAND patents. Everyone should be able to add a word completion capability to their phones and computers. IF Apple can prove they were the first to invent this idea, they deserve to be paid a fair rate (FRAND), but not some astronomical figure of $30 - $40 a phone. Crazy.
Look at Samsung and Sony TVs. The new ones have powerful new features...run by a menuing system. The menus are different but accomplish the same thing. Steering wheels...different appearance, but the same capabilities. No company should be able to ban the sales of other devices for such an infraction. Make them pay a REASONABLE licensing fee, sure. If Apple (and others) can stop others from using (same example) word completion...then they are limiting the choice of the customer: Use Apple products if you are lazy and cannot spell....or use EVERYONE else's devices and suck it up - type it all out and get an education ...you...you...non-errr..nonn-spellar...you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
My question is this: Does a patent stop anyone from making the same product or a similar product. Example? Does this mean that NOBODY can every use word completion software for the next almost 20 years since Apple has the patent on it....OR...does it mean that a competitor cannot steal the code and use it in their device? If someone writes DIFFERENT code to accomplish the same word completion action are they at risk?
Either way the code is actually protected by copyright, not a software patent. The implementation (often more of a concept) is what is patented. If you read one of these, they contain an extensive description of how such a thing may be used at times. If you want to know what is protected, look for where it says, "What is claimed is..".
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Yes, Samsung, we've seen the "slander the jury foreman" angle from you before. It didn't fly then, it won't fly now. You are thieves without honor.
Oh... is there an honor if you became a thief? Samsung will be happy about that.
Apple didn't need lawyers for a North California jury, only someone to chant: USA, USA, USA
Originally Posted by bataillon
Apple didn't need lawyers for a North California jury, only someone to chant: USA, USA, USA
You'd prefer an American lawsuit to take place in a different country?
So if you committed a crime in the US, you'd want to be tried in… European court. Or somewhere that sharia law is used. You think that works out, then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You'd prefer an American lawsuit to take place in a different country?
So if you committed a crime in the US, you'd want to be tried in… European court. Or somewhere that sharia law is used. You think that works out, then?
If the concern was that an unbiased trial could not be held in Northern California, Samsung could have filed a request for a change of venue. I never read a request for one. My biggest issue on here is that people determine fairness by whether they're happy with a verdict. I only care how the process was carried out, and yes the jury was stupid in this regard. I don't have an issue with their conclusion. They did make mistakes on how things work. They never asked questions. There's no way to read through and discuss that much material in three days. They most likely just wanted to get back to their normal lives. It's also not just on the foreman. It's a collective failure when you believe someone without asking questions, although I don't know if that will be the thing that drags out the appeals process.
apple should stop worrying about samsung and worry about these guys .
http://android-sale.com/goophone-i5.html
Originally Posted by vitaminjayz
apple should stop worrying about samsung and worry about these guys .
http://android-sale.com/goophone-i5.html
Worry about the guys that stole intellectual property and corporate secrets from them? The guys who, when they sue Apple, will wind up in jail and their companies and families bankrupted? Why?
iphone 5 very disappointed . screen should been at least 4.3 ,removable battery,and a larger one ,nfc ,wireless charging,and a memory card slot.
maybe apple could make there own type of memory card bit like sony did.
You forge the /s at the end of your post.