the next time Samsung builds a phone they will try and innovate, and won't straight up copy.
We saw this when Samsung completely changed the look and feel of the Galaxy phones (I believe with the S3) because the S2 was such a legal landmine.
This helped customers too with more innovation in the market (of course, this being Samsung, no one thought the new design was better).
Actually the S2 wasn't a singular design like the S3, and on are, or were. The picture of the SGS 2 always shown is that of the international version that was not sold in the US. Here's what the US versions of the SGS 2 looked like.
While Touch Wiz still looks a lot like iOS, I think Samsung tried to avoid litigation with these differing designs in the US versions.
Exactly! It doesn't matter whether or not we can identify a distinctive gain or win for Apple as a result of these proceedings. We all win when thieves are punished.
I want to know what you apple people think about this entire patent trial. Do you think Samsung is wrong to steal something patented, but it ok for Apple to steal something that's not? Should you be able to patent these type of things?
I want to know what you apple people think about this entire patent trial. Do you think Samsung is wrong to steal something patented, but it ok for Apple to steal something that's not? Should you be able to patent these type of things?
Perhaps you want to take another swing at your questions without writing something as absurd as "you apple people."
Looking at the replies here, it seems no one sees the point of the article.
People are just shouting about whether Samsung is copier or not, but failing to notice the point.
The point is there is another way to unlock a phone using the touch-screen
Remember this is a patent case and the question is whether slide-and-unlock is the only viable option.
From these slides (in the article if you haven't actually read it), Samsung actually had at least two good screen unlock alternatives to slide and unlock (the drag from the corner of the screen and the drag from the top of the screen to unveil underlying home screen and unlocks it).
I want to know what you apple people think about this entire patent trial. Do you think Samsung is wrong to steal something patented, but it ok for Apple to steal something that's not? Should you be able to patent these type of things?
I want to know what you apple people think about this entire patent trial. Do you think Samsung is wrong to steal something patented, but it ok for Apple to steal something that's not? Should you be able to patent these type of things?
One important thing to keep in mind is that neither Samsung nor Apple can be reasonably accused of stealing an item if that item is not claimed to be owned by someone else. If either party copies and utilizes something first used by the other but not claimed as their intellectual property, there is no theft. So the answer to your first question is that unless the item has been declared as someone else's intellectual property, Apple is free to use it without being accused of stealing.
It used to be that when designing a new device you had to check you weren't violating anyone else's patents. Nowadays you almost have to only include things that you can patent. Like bringing patentability in to the design process the same way manufacturability is.
Looking at the replies here, it seems no one sees the point of the article.
People are just shouting about whether Samsung is copier or not, but failing to notice the point.
The point is there is another way to unlock a phone using the touch-screen
Remember this is a patent case and the question is whether slide-and-unlock is the only viable option.
From these slides (in the article if you haven't actually read it), Samsung actually had at least two good screen unlock alternatives to slide and unlock (the drag from the corner of the screen and the drag from the top of the screen to unveil underlying home screen and unlocks it).
They act like copying this or that GUI element is a minor thing, but if you think about it, the user interface is the key to a new class of device failing or succeeding. It's not a minor thing at all.
Are pull down notifications on the iPhone not copying Android?
It is not a question of simply copying or not copying. The issue is whether or not property that was designated as legally belonging to another company (I.e., that company's intellectual property) was used without permission. If such intellectual property is used without permission (which might be though licensing), then the copying in that situation is known as stealing. It only makes sense. If you're taking property that's legally been declared as someone else's and using it as your own, you are stealing that person's property. Unless notifications in some form have been registered as Google/Android property, Apple cannot possibly be accused of stealing it. It's all right to copy something if you're not stealing. Has anyone on Android patented pull down notifications?
It is not a question of simply copying or not copying. The issue is whether or not property that was designated as legally belonging to another company (I.e., that company's intellectual property) was used without permission. If such intellectual property is used without permission (which might be though licensing), then the copying in that situation is known as stealing. It only makes sense. If you're taking property that's legally been declared as someone else's and using it as your own, you are stealing that person's property. Unless notifications in some form have been registered as Google/Android property, Apple cannot possibly be accused of stealing it. It's all right to copy something if you're not stealing. Has anyone on Android patented pull down notifications?
No they haven't. Google applied for a patent in 2009, but nothing has so far come of it.
What recent phone from Samsung is copying Apple? Is the GS4 or 5 copying the iPhone? Are pull down notifications on the iPhone not copying Android?
Recent phones are pretty differentiated, at least enough so to make litigation more difficult, and Apple's phones have as much 'borrowed' features as other phones if not more (notifications, swiped the Swype keyboard, almost blatant holo UI knockoff in iOS7 etc). I do think the big difference is Apple had 'Swipe to unlock' patented and Samsung pretty blatantly ripped it off. Step 1 is for the court to consider whether the patent is valid. The patent process is not exhaustive or even really thorough by any means. Basically you can patent almost anything, and by design if it is important enough someone will sue someone and the lawyers and parties involved can fund whatever research they want to validate/invalidate it. If it is deemed valid then it is theft and a level of compensation needs to be determined.
I think Google does have a patent pending for notification center, but no actual patent. That could be problematic for Apple but I hope it doesn't get issued (same as I personally think a swipe to unlock patent is almost a joke in and of itself and would be laughable if it wasn't such a brilliant obstructionist maneuver).
Assuming the Swipe to unlock patent isn't invalidated I think Apple's valuations are pretty creative. My first choice would be to have marginal patents invalidated. Second choice (if the patent stands) would be to have Samsung found guilty, willful, then estimate the real value of how 'Slide to unlock' influenced purchasing decision or phone functionality (both pretty close to 0). Maybe a total of $10 million, then triple it for willfulness. With the ridiculous damage amounts Apple is claiming I'm surprised they didn't have Phil show up to the courtroom in a neck brace.
This is getting pretty silly. All of these guys borrow from each other, which is nothing new.
I can't wait for the court battle over the innovative android windowshade vs. apples borrowed notification center. Even microsoft finally came out with their own copycat version of androids windowshade at this years build.
I don't see how slide to unlock is any different than the windowshade. Nothing to see here, just companies borrowing ideas from each other. Move along.
The question I would ask is, did Google patent their window shade or was it even patentable given what might exist as prior art? If so, then yes, they can make a determination as to whether Apple infringed their patent and, if so, sue for compensation.
Comments
Actually the S2 wasn't a singular design like the S3, and on are, or were. The picture of the SGS 2 always shown is that of the international version that was not sold in the US. Here's what the US versions of the SGS 2 looked like.
While Touch Wiz still looks a lot like iOS, I think Samsung tried to avoid litigation with these differing designs in the US versions.
Exactly! It doesn't matter whether or not we can identify a distinctive gain or win for Apple as a result of these proceedings. We all win when thieves are punished.
I want to know what you apple people think about this entire patent trial. Do you think Samsung is wrong to steal something patented, but it ok for Apple to steal something that's not? Should you be able to patent these type of things?
until apple patents breathing
Perhaps you want to take another swing at your questions without writing something as absurd as "you apple people."
Looking at the replies here, it seems no one sees the point of the article.
People are just shouting about whether Samsung is copier or not, but failing to notice the point.
The point is there is another way to unlock a phone using the touch-screen
Remember this is a patent case and the question is whether slide-and-unlock is the only viable option.
From these slides (in the article if you haven't actually read it), Samsung actually had at least two good screen unlock alternatives to slide and unlock (the drag from the corner of the screen and the drag from the top of the screen to unveil underlying home screen and unlocks it).
Uh… do you know what stealing is?
One important thing to keep in mind is that neither Samsung nor Apple can be reasonably accused of stealing an item if that item is not claimed to be owned by someone else. If either party copies and utilizes something first used by the other but not claimed as their intellectual property, there is no theft. So the answer to your first question is that unless the item has been declared as someone else's intellectual property, Apple is free to use it without being accused of stealing.
Maybe, maybe not, but they were patented and until the day those patents are deemed invalid they need to be honored.
It used to be that when designing a new device you had to check you weren't violating anyone else's patents. Nowadays you almost have to only include things that you can patent. Like bringing patentability in to the design process the same way manufacturability is.
They act like copying this or that GUI element is a minor thing, but if you think about it, the user interface is the key to a new class of device failing or succeeding. It's not a minor thing at all.
lol I meant to say appleinsider
What recent phone from Samsung is copying Apple? Is the GS4 or 5 copying the iPhone? Are pull down notifications on the iPhone not copying Android?
Is English not your first language?
It is not a question of simply copying or not copying. The issue is whether or not property that was designated as legally belonging to another company (I.e., that company's intellectual property) was used without permission. If such intellectual property is used without permission (which might be though licensing), then the copying in that situation is known as stealing. It only makes sense. If you're taking property that's legally been declared as someone else's and using it as your own, you are stealing that person's property. Unless notifications in some form have been registered as Google/Android property, Apple cannot possibly be accused of stealing it. It's all right to copy something if you're not stealing. Has anyone on Android patented pull down notifications?
It is not a question of simply copying or not copying. The issue is whether or not property that was designated as legally belonging to another company (I.e., that company's intellectual property) was used without permission. If such intellectual property is used without permission (which might be though licensing), then the copying in that situation is known as stealing. It only makes sense. If you're taking property that's legally been declared as someone else's and using it as your own, you are stealing that person's property. Unless notifications in some form have been registered as Google/Android property, Apple cannot possibly be accused of stealing it. It's all right to copy something if you're not stealing. Has anyone on Android patented pull down notifications?
No they haven't. Google applied for a patent in 2009, but nothing has so far come of it.
What recent phone from Samsung is copying Apple? Is the GS4 or 5 copying the iPhone? Are pull down notifications on the iPhone not copying Android?
Recent phones are pretty differentiated, at least enough so to make litigation more difficult, and Apple's phones have as much 'borrowed' features as other phones if not more (notifications, swiped the Swype keyboard, almost blatant holo UI knockoff in iOS7 etc). I do think the big difference is Apple had 'Swipe to unlock' patented and Samsung pretty blatantly ripped it off. Step 1 is for the court to consider whether the patent is valid. The patent process is not exhaustive or even really thorough by any means. Basically you can patent almost anything, and by design if it is important enough someone will sue someone and the lawyers and parties involved can fund whatever research they want to validate/invalidate it. If it is deemed valid then it is theft and a level of compensation needs to be determined.
I think Google does have a patent pending for notification center, but no actual patent. That could be problematic for Apple but I hope it doesn't get issued (same as I personally think a swipe to unlock patent is almost a joke in and of itself and would be laughable if it wasn't such a brilliant obstructionist maneuver).
Assuming the Swipe to unlock patent isn't invalidated I think Apple's valuations are pretty creative. My first choice would be to have marginal patents invalidated. Second choice (if the patent stands) would be to have Samsung found guilty, willful, then estimate the real value of how 'Slide to unlock' influenced purchasing decision or phone functionality (both pretty close to 0). Maybe a total of $10 million, then triple it for willfulness. With the ridiculous damage amounts Apple is claiming I'm surprised they didn't have Phil show up to the courtroom in a neck brace.
The question I would ask is, did Google patent their window shade or was it even patentable given what might exist as prior art? If so, then yes, they can make a determination as to whether Apple infringed their patent and, if so, sue for compensation.