Samsung's mission is to make other companies make something popular, then to steal their thunder. Again, there's nothing wrong with this strategy.
Apple didn't invent anything with the iPhone. They made a prettier-looking device compared to Samsung's F700 and the LG Prada, but there was no inventing going around.
Suppose Apple invented 3G. Then they'd have grounds to stop competitors. However, that's not the case. Apple made a pretty-looking device and that's about it.
A single company can't invent something like 3G, ugh.
I find it funny about Samsung this and Samsung that...take away Google's Android and they have no software worthy competing against Apple in any form or shape.
Frankly, I stopped buying any Samsung product. Anyone but theirs at this point.
A single company can't invent something like 3G, ugh.
Oh? I'd say a single company (heck, person) could be responsible for tech that then becomes a standard liable under FRAND due to its quality. It doesn't happen often, but it's certainly possible.
Except the retina display is a trademark, not a patent, giving my argument more credence.
"Retina" is a trademark used to refer to the resolution (pixel density) of a display at a given distance from the eyes that make it (almost) impossible to distinguish individual pixels.
The LCD technology itself (IPS) is not Apple's, it was originally developed by Hitachi and further developed by LG.
However,
The display IP used to make those LCDs is Apple's.
"Not in iOS!" <span style="font-family:'Apple Color Emoji';font-size:28px;line-height:normal;">????</span>
<span style="font-family:'Apple Color Emoji';font-size:28px;line-height:normal;">????</span>
<span style="font-family:'Apple Color Emoji';font-size:28px;line-height:normal;">????</span>
Oh? I'd say a single company (heck, person) could be responsible for tech that then becomes a standard liable under FRAND due to its quality. It doesn't happen often, but it's certainly possible.
True, I suppose. But unlikely, since multiple companies have to support it, otherwise it's basically proprietary.
Usually a standards body will be formed, for instance.
Technically a company can invent something, and then release it as an industry standard, but its pretty rare, especially if it involves communication tech that uses bandwidth and frequencies governed by governments.
"Retina" is a trademark used to refer to the resolution (pixel density) of a display at a given distance from the eyes that make it (almost) impossible to distinguish individual pixels.
The display IP used to make those LCDs is Apple's.
The problem is that these patents aren't anything big. Although there are many components going into the LCD, Apple is patenting the application of a supplier's supply. Yes, you read that right. It's like Dell patenting using the AMD 7850 graphics card on desktops. It's asinine.
About the 2nd one: This is merely software calibration. Why is it even a patent?
The 3rd one is merely in-cell (on-cell), which Samsung has been using since 2010. It's a copycat patent.
At the end of the day, we have to acknowledge that Apple's legal team sucks. Big time. Just like the CFO, its lawyers seem to have been far surpassed by the size and scope of the company. It's deeply disheartening.
Merits (or lack of it) notwithstanding, I am dubious about the whole e-books spat as well.
At the end of the day, we have to acknowledge that Apple's legal team sucks. Big time. Just like the CFO, its lawyers seem to have been far surpassed by the size and scope of the company. It's deeply disheartening.
Merits (or lack of it) notwithstanding, I am dubious about the whole e-books spat as well.
How does its legal team suck? Apple has nothing to stand on with its BS patents.
If Apple engineered something for once, they'd have something to fight Samsung with. Having patents relating to shapes and colors aren't gonna hold much weight in the court of law.
The problem is that these patents aren't anything big. Although there are many components going into the LCD, Apple is patenting the application of a supplier's supply. Yes, you read that right. It's like Dell patenting using the AMD 7850 graphics card on desktops. It's asinine.
About the 2nd one: This is merely software calibration. Why is it even a patent?
The 3rd one is merely on-screen, which Samsung has been using since 20<span style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.231;">10. It's a copycat patent.</span>
Software is meaningless, right? Have fun using your tech without software.
Patents can involve the implementation of components.
Samsung, like LG, et. al. make components, and make many according to another company's IP and specifications. They're a foundry. That's why Apple's displays have been color representation, and why their SoC's typically beat whatever the comparable Sammy SoC happens to be.
How does its legal team suck? Apple has nothing to stand on with its BS patents.
If Apple engineered something for once, they'd have something to fight Samsung with. Having patents relating to shapes and colors aren't gonna hold much weight in the court of law.
Because the only way to engineer something is to physically manufacture it. D'ok.
Software is meaningless, right? Have fun using your tech without software.
Patents can involve the implementation of components.
Samsung, like LG, et. al. make components, and make many according to another company's IP and specifications. They're a foundry. That's why Apple's displays have been color representation, and why their SoC's typically beat whatever the comparable Sammy SoC happens to be.
- Software isn't meaningless, but patenting general algorithms is abhorable.
Did you even read the patent application. It basically says that Apple patented the algorithm for making the green pixel less pronounced.
- ONLY if they're significant enough to produce a new invention. Using the next generation NVIDIA GPU on your desktop is NOT worthy of becoming a patent.
- I hope you realize the Nexus 10 processor is 1.5x more powerful than Apple's inefficient A6-series processors.
Also, Apple has no genuine IP. It's all just Samsung's tech. You are right that Samsung and LG makes screens based on Apple's choice of screen size and resolution, but they're both Samsung and LG's tech, not Apple's.
American companies don't engineer hardware anymore (Except for CPUs and GPUs). Every other hardware component is done by Asian engineers.
First of all, high tech patents are so different from life science, pharmaceutical ones. For instance, even in an LCD there are a ton of patents, and for a smartphone, you guess. However, only a few patents are probably embodied in a medicine pill. The ITC importation ban on patent infringement made more sense with those medicines.
So if anything, you guys should be upset that the ITC can ban something solely because a tiny bit of technology is infringed on in a smartphone that probably embodies thousands of patents. I firmly believe that the section 337 investigation should be modified to limit some powers of the ITC.
Asking for a SEP held by Samsung to be treated differently is I think misplaced. A SEP is still a patent that should be compensated if used - just like how Apple wanted to recoup its SEP royalties from other users. The question is how fair were the terms, and whether the parties were cooperative and willing to enter into an agreement in good faith. Apple probably failed on that good faith part most likely.
I am actually still surprised that the ITC did not end up finding Samsung abused its SEPs, since I thought there were enough evidence to be stretched to have such a holding. I had every reasons to be impressed by the stance that the ITC took, just like how you guys had every rights to be upset that the ITC took this position.
People think I am anti-Apple or something just because I often go against Apple's position. Well, I worked with Apple's in-house counsels and represented matters for Apple. Blindly propping every move Apple makes does not change the fact that Apple is fallible and sometimes makes bad decisions.
Trolling 101? More like a doctorate, PhD even. I gotta admit he writes very well and has made some valid points but kinda lost me once he said Apple Maps kills people daily.
- Software isn't meaningless, but patenting general algorithms is abhorable.
Did you even read the patent application. It basically says that Apple patented the algorithm for making the green pixel less pronounced.
- ONLY if they're significant enough to produce a new invention. Using the next generation NVIDIA GPU on your desktop is NOT worthy of becoming a patent.
- I hope you realize the Nexus 10 processor is 1.5x more powerful than Apple's inefficient A6-series processors.
Also, Apple has no genuine IP. It's all just Samsung's tech. You are right that Samsung and LG makes screens based on Apple's choice of screen size and resolution, but they're both Samsung and LG's tech, not Apple's.
American companies don't engineer hardware anymore (Except for CPUs and GPUs). Every other hardware component is done by Asian engineers.
Take it to PTO and ask for reexamination. I am pretty sure that those are not just algorithms for them not being patentable subject matter.
If you really think one type of patent is more worthy just because it is a complex EE hardware than a seemingly simple interface related software than you are absolutely wrong. The worthy of a patent is really how many people want it. As pointed previously, Apple's patents are often wanted by many.
Take it to PTO and ask for reexamination. I am pretty sure that those are not just algorithms for them not being patentable subject matter.
If you really think one type of patent is more worthy just because it is a complex EE than a seemingly simple interface related software than you are absolutely wrong.
Actually, I do think that.
The thing is, Android's UI is far different than iOS's. iOS is just an App-Launcher. How anyone can confuse the 2 is beyond me.
The problem is that these patents aren't anything big. Although there are many components going into the LCD, Apple is patenting the application of a supplier's supply. Yes, you read that right. It's like Dell patenting using the AMD 7850 graphics card on desktops. It's asinine.
About the 2nd one: This is merely software calibration. Why is it even a patent?
The 3rd one is merely in-cell (on-cell), which Samsung has been using since 2010. It's a copycat patent.
I'm guessing you're either partially illiterate or blind. Either way you're completely blind to reason. Good for you. As they say, ignorance is bliss.
Comments
A single company can't invent something like 3G, ugh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
A single company can't invent something like 3G, ugh.
I think you missed the word "suppose" in there.
How else is someone supposed to read it? Earlier you claimed Samsung is inventing 5G.
I find it funny about Samsung this and Samsung that...take away Google's Android and they have no software worthy competing against Apple in any form or shape.
Frankly, I stopped buying any Samsung product. Anyone but theirs at this point.
Originally Posted by Pendergast
Plus, there's such a thing as multitasking.
"Not in iOS!" ????????????
Originally Posted by Pendergast
A single company can't invent something like 3G, ugh.
Oh? I'd say a single company (heck, person) could be responsible for tech that then becomes a standard liable under FRAND due to its quality. It doesn't happen often, but it's certainly possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426
Except the retina display is a trademark, not a patent, giving my argument more credence.
"Retina" is a trademark used to refer to the resolution (pixel density) of a display at a given distance from the eyes that make it (almost) impossible to distinguish individual pixels.
The LCD technology itself (IPS) is not Apple's, it was originally developed by Hitachi and further developed by LG.
However,
The display IP used to make those LCDs is Apple's.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/12/apple-reveals-two-retina-display-technologies.html
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/06/apples-retina-display-patent-comes-to-light.html
In fact Apple has another LCD patent that combines the touch sensors into the displays themselves, removing a layer.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/.services/blog/6a0120a5580826970c0120a5580ebf970c/search?filter.q=touch+screen
And just for shits and giggles, an article stating that Samsung is having a hard time matching the Retina display in the iPad...
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/07/samsung-struggles-to-match-apples-retina-display-quality.html
Edited to add links.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radster360
This is total bull! Apple is using Qualcomm product
Not in the AT&T version of Apple's iPhone 4, 3GS and 3G, as well as cellular versions of the original iPad and iPad 2.
True, I suppose. But unlikely, since multiple companies have to support it, otherwise it's basically proprietary.
Usually a standards body will be formed, for instance.
Technically a company can invent something, and then release it as an industry standard, but its pretty rare, especially if it involves communication tech that uses bandwidth and frequencies governed by governments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin
"Retina" is a trademark used to refer to the resolution (pixel density) of a display at a given distance from the eyes that make it (almost) impossible to distinguish individual pixels.
The display IP used to make those LCDs is Apple's.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/12/apple-reveals-two-retina-display-technologies.html
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/06/apples-retina-display-patent-comes-to-light.html
In fact Apple has another LCD patent that combines the touch sensors into the displays themselves, removing a layer.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/.services/blog/6a0120a5580826970c0120a5580ebf970c/search?filter.q=touch+screen
The problem is that these patents aren't anything big. Although there are many components going into the LCD, Apple is patenting the application of a supplier's supply. Yes, you read that right. It's like Dell patenting using the AMD 7850 graphics card on desktops. It's asinine.
About the 2nd one: This is merely software calibration. Why is it even a patent?
The 3rd one is merely in-cell (on-cell), which Samsung has been using since 2010. It's a copycat patent.
Merits (or lack of it) notwithstanding, I am dubious about the whole e-books spat as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
At the end of the day, we have to acknowledge that Apple's legal team sucks. Big time. Just like the CFO, its lawyers seem to have been far surpassed by the size and scope of the company. It's deeply disheartening.
Merits (or lack of it) notwithstanding, I am dubious about the whole e-books spat as well.
How does its legal team suck? Apple has nothing to stand on with its BS patents.
If Apple engineered something for once, they'd have something to fight Samsung with. Having patents relating to shapes and colors aren't gonna hold much weight in the court of law.
Software is meaningless, right? Have fun using your tech without software.
Patents can involve the implementation of components.
Samsung, like LG, et. al. make components, and make many according to another company's IP and specifications. They're a foundry. That's why Apple's displays have been color representation, and why their SoC's typically beat whatever the comparable Sammy SoC happens to be.
Because the only way to engineer something is to physically manufacture it. D'ok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
Software is meaningless, right? Have fun using your tech without software.
Patents can involve the implementation of components.
Samsung, like LG, et. al. make components, and make many according to another company's IP and specifications. They're a foundry. That's why Apple's displays have been color representation, and why their SoC's typically beat whatever the comparable Sammy SoC happens to be.
- Software isn't meaningless, but patenting general algorithms is abhorable.
Did you even read the patent application. It basically says that Apple patented the algorithm for making the green pixel less pronounced.
- ONLY if they're significant enough to produce a new invention. Using the next generation NVIDIA GPU on your desktop is NOT worthy of becoming a patent.
- I hope you realize the Nexus 10 processor is 1.5x more powerful than Apple's inefficient A6-series processors.
Also, Apple has no genuine IP. It's all just Samsung's tech. You are right that Samsung and LG makes screens based on Apple's choice of screen size and resolution, but they're both Samsung and LG's tech, not Apple's.
American companies don't engineer hardware anymore (Except for CPUs and GPUs). Every other hardware component is done by Asian engineers.
First of all, high tech patents are so different from life science, pharmaceutical ones. For instance, even in an LCD there are a ton of patents, and for a smartphone, you guess. However, only a few patents are probably embodied in a medicine pill. The ITC importation ban on patent infringement made more sense with those medicines.
So if anything, you guys should be upset that the ITC can ban something solely because a tiny bit of technology is infringed on in a smartphone that probably embodies thousands of patents. I firmly believe that the section 337 investigation should be modified to limit some powers of the ITC.
Asking for a SEP held by Samsung to be treated differently is I think misplaced. A SEP is still a patent that should be compensated if used - just like how Apple wanted to recoup its SEP royalties from other users. The question is how fair were the terms, and whether the parties were cooperative and willing to enter into an agreement in good faith. Apple probably failed on that good faith part most likely.
I am actually still surprised that the ITC did not end up finding Samsung abused its SEPs, since I thought there were enough evidence to be stretched to have such a holding. I had every reasons to be impressed by the stance that the ITC took, just like how you guys had every rights to be upset that the ITC took this position.
People think I am anti-Apple or something just because I often go against Apple's position. Well, I worked with Apple's in-house counsels and represented matters for Apple. Blindly propping every move Apple makes does not change the fact that Apple is fallible and sometimes makes bad decisions.
Trolling 101? More like a doctorate, PhD even. I gotta admit he writes very well and has made some valid points but kinda lost me once he said Apple Maps kills people daily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426
- Software isn't meaningless, but patenting general algorithms is abhorable.
Did you even read the patent application. It basically says that Apple patented the algorithm for making the green pixel less pronounced.
- ONLY if they're significant enough to produce a new invention. Using the next generation NVIDIA GPU on your desktop is NOT worthy of becoming a patent.
- I hope you realize the Nexus 10 processor is 1.5x more powerful than Apple's inefficient A6-series processors.
Also, Apple has no genuine IP. It's all just Samsung's tech. You are right that Samsung and LG makes screens based on Apple's choice of screen size and resolution, but they're both Samsung and LG's tech, not Apple's.
American companies don't engineer hardware anymore (Except for CPUs and GPUs). Every other hardware component is done by Asian engineers.
Take it to PTO and ask for reexamination. I am pretty sure that those are not just algorithms for them not being patentable subject matter.
If you really think one type of patent is more worthy just because it is a complex EE hardware than a seemingly simple interface related software than you are absolutely wrong. The worthy of a patent is really how many people want it. As pointed previously, Apple's patents are often wanted by many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist
Take it to PTO and ask for reexamination. I am pretty sure that those are not just algorithms for them not being patentable subject matter.
If you really think one type of patent is more worthy just because it is a complex EE than a seemingly simple interface related software than you are absolutely wrong.
Actually, I do think that.
The thing is, Android's UI is far different than iOS's. iOS is just an App-Launcher. How anyone can confuse the 2 is beyond me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426
The problem is that these patents aren't anything big. Although there are many components going into the LCD, Apple is patenting the application of a supplier's supply. Yes, you read that right. It's like Dell patenting using the AMD 7850 graphics card on desktops. It's asinine.
About the 2nd one: This is merely software calibration. Why is it even a patent?
The 3rd one is merely in-cell (on-cell), which Samsung has been using since 2010. It's a copycat patent.
I'm guessing you're either partially illiterate or blind. Either way you're completely blind to reason. Good for you. As they say, ignorance is bliss.