How about you just stick to what you're thinking because no one else here thinks like you. Sorry but I do not and will not purchase anything from a company that does not run I it's own merit. Samsung has proven they are unethical and only do things for the money. This trial is important to me because it underscores the very essentials of capitalism and the entrepreneurial spirit.
Ok. Let me say what were all thinking.. Apple and samsung are being childish in even starting the patent wars. first off apple didn't even invent the iphone shape ... more brain farts...
The iPhone shape was only a tiny part of the "trade dress" issue. I micturate on the rest of your drivel...
So VP of Android Engineering Hiroshi Lockheimer claims they didn't copy things from Apple and that Android / Google actually invented some of Apple's patented items before Apple patented them. Just because he says they did doesn't make it so. Where is the proof / documentation / prototypes etc. to back his claims?
(1) It took a huge team of experts at Google to re-invent the Apple-patented technology -- the technology is non-obvious even to experts in the art
(2) Google invented some of the disputed technology before Apple patented it
(3) Google did not publicly disclose the technology until after Apple filed for the patent(s)
(4) Apple invented the disputed technology before Google re-invented it
(5) Apple wins the patent because it was first-to-invent (as well as first to file for the patent(s))
(6) As a seller of patented technology, Samsung loses
(7) Ignorance is not an excuse under the law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic
So VP of Android Engineering Hiroshi Lockheimer claims they didn't copy things from Apple and that Android / Google actually invented some of Apple's patented items before Apple patented them. Just because he says they did doesn't make it so. Where is the proof / documentation / prototypes etc. to back his claims?
Come on now, you can't expect Google to give details on how they spy !
Doh! I suggest best you read up and educate your self if you believe that; you'll continue to look ignorant until you do.. oh, and while your at it, run a spell check on your name.. "skill" has two L's dumb dumb.
I have read stories about Samsung faking production and sales figures. They manufacture products for Apple. There are stories about Android being a crib of Apple software. What is going on? The only people profiting from this unholy mess are the lawyers.
I am happy with my interconnected iMacs, iPads and iPhone, the rest can go hang.
All he did was tell a story which really sounded like a fairy tale to me. Terrible title for the article as the article does not mention that he ever even attempted to provide any proof in court to back up what he claims occurred.
I was under the impression that you cannot patent an idea... but you can patent a specific implementation of an idea.
That is correct, strictly speaking you cannot patent an idea only a specific implementation. But as it stands right now (with how the patent system works at this moment in time) it does seem that patents that are too broad slip trough the nets, and if a patent is too broad then you aren't patenting a specific implementation and are basically patenting an idea.
If the system worked as it should your statement would absolutely be correct.
Comments
Andy "I guess we're not gonna be shipping that phone now" Rubin.
FTFY
Because it’s their idea.
Unfortunately for you (& Apple), you can't patent an idea.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/02/15/protecting-ideas-can-ideas-be-protected-or-patented/id=48009/
How about you just stick to what you're thinking because no one else here thinks like you. Sorry but I do not and will not purchase anything from a company that does not run I it's own merit. Samsung has proven they are unethical and only do things for the money. This trial is important to me because it underscores the very essentials of capitalism and the entrepreneurial spirit.
Unfortunately for you (& Apple), you can't patent an idea.
Of course you can.
NEWS FLASH:
"Samsung throws Google under the bus." Details at 11:00 PM.
I hope Samsung's lawyers call Eric Schmidt, the Apple mole, to testify... I'd buy popcorn to watch that.
I was under the impression that you cannot patent an idea... but you can patent a specific implementation of an idea.
Ok. Let me say what were all thinking.. Apple and samsung are being childish in even starting the patent wars. first off apple didn't even invent the iphone shape ... more brain farts...
The iPhone shape was only a tiny part of the "trade dress" issue. I micturate on the rest of your drivel...
So VP of Android Engineering Hiroshi Lockheimer claims they didn't copy things from Apple and that Android / Google actually invented some of Apple's patented items before Apple patented them. Just because he says they did doesn't make it so. Where is the proof / documentation / prototypes etc. to back his claims?
Take-home lessons here:
(1) It took a huge team of experts at Google to re-invent the Apple-patented technology -- the technology is non-obvious even to experts in the art
(2) Google invented some of the disputed technology before Apple patented it
(3) Google did not publicly disclose the technology until after Apple filed for the patent(s)
(4) Apple invented the disputed technology before Google re-invented it
(5) Apple wins the patent because it was first-to-invent (as well as first to file for the patent(s))
(6) As a seller of patented technology, Samsung loses
(7) Ignorance is not an excuse under the law
So VP of Android Engineering Hiroshi Lockheimer claims they didn't copy things from Apple and that Android / Google actually invented some of Apple's patented items before Apple patented them. Just because he says they did doesn't make it so. Where is the proof / documentation / prototypes etc. to back his claims?
Come on now, you can't expect Google to give details on how they spy !
Since Google isn't a party to this case, I'm not sure that this is even relevant.
You are right. But it's difficult for people to catch the difference.
Well, Apple is asking for $2.2B in damages, and treble damages ($6.6B) are available.
Even the most white shoe law firm in the world doesn't charge that.
Of course you can.
Doh! I suggest best you read up and educate your self if you believe that; you'll continue to look ignorant until you do.. oh, and while your at it, run a spell check on your name.. "skill" has two L's dumb dumb.
They can be sued since they make money indirectly. There's actually a term for it but I don't remember it.
I think it's called 'flogging your customers' details for fun and profit'.
Don't think there's an abbreviation though.
Come on now, you can't expect Google to give details on how they spy !
If he or Google expects anyone, including the court, to even begin to consider his claims as even remotely credible I can.
I am happy with my interconnected iMacs, iPads and iPhone, the rest can go hang.
Samsung calls on Android exec in patent trial to prove certain features were created by Google, not Apple
All he did was tell a story which really sounded like a fairy tale to me. Terrible title for the article as the article does not mention that he ever even attempted to provide any proof in court to back up what he claims occurred.
I was under the impression that you cannot patent an idea... but you can patent a specific implementation of an idea.
That is correct, strictly speaking you cannot patent an idea only a specific implementation. But as it stands right now (with how the patent system works at this moment in time) it does seem that patents that are too broad slip trough the nets, and if a patent is too broad then you aren't patenting a specific implementation and are basically patenting an idea.
If the system worked as it should your statement would absolutely be correct.