Just how am I'm peddling? When in FACT just as Samsung was found guilty Apple was found guilty. So what you're saying is that it doesn't matter that Apple was found guilty?
Look, I think this whole thing is BS and both should fight on the field with products and not in the courts. Apple is not all that Holy as you seem to think they are. They do many bad things just like every single corporation in the world. That's just how it is unfortunately.
There is no equivalence in "guilt" between the two parties, so why even attempt it, SirLance99?
Samsung is a serial infringer and this is part and partial of its infringement pattern. Read the following:
From the amount awarded versus the amount demanded it looks like a "win" for Samsung. A fine that is practically pocket change for these companies means there is no "stick" to stop any infringing behaviour. It becomes a small cost of business. Outside the two camps who will support the standpoint of their chosen one the response will be "meh" and "what are they still squabbling.. oh grow up". These sort of legal disputes are a joy to the techies, nerds, fanbois and the media but to the rest of the world.. not.
Whilst in Europe any android phone, Samsung or HTC etc can still use slide to unlock to their hearts content. as its not even a valid patent and Samsung is not even copying Aplle, though now officially not as cool.
You are in the UK. Britain's last important inventions were RADAR, VSTOL, the angle deck, and jet engines, some 70 years ago. Computers and Software have been for the most part very U.S. centric since the mid 50's, so naturally, the value is greater here in the U.S.
I don't take issue with the harshness (others can judge that for themselves) - the problem is that you answered a point I didn't make.
This latest post comes slightly closer, but is still filled with silly emotive rhetoric. Nevertheless, in an attempt to make my thoughts clearer, I'll have a go at responding.
On the first point about software ruling all; what's silly is if you only take that at face value and therefore misunderstand the point (which you apparently did).
The point I was making is the exact point that Steve Jobs made years ago about the iPod. He explained that on the surface, iPod is "just a small computer". What makes it a killer product is the software (and now, we might add "services" or "ecosystem" to that point).
The same is absolutely true about smart phones. The key differential is the software; the operating system and its UI, the ecosystem, the content. This does not mean that hardware can't be a differential, but software is key and Apple understands this.
Some people (perhaps the Android apologists you speak of?) occasionally suggest that no company should ever be able to patent or copyright aspects of software design. A subset of those people make valid points about "patent trolling" and overstretching the bounds of IP - but generally, what they are missing is that the competition and innovation is really being driven from the software end of things. In that kind of environment, I believe you have to allow companies to (within reason) patent and copyright designs so that there is an incentive to innovate (where those innovations can be protected from rip-offs).
On the second point...weak and wrong-hearted? Are you even serious, or are you just trolling now?
How is it weak and wrong-hearted to be tired of the constant legal battles? I would hazard a guess that Tim Cook himself is tired of them! Being tired of these battles does not mean that I don't support Apple's right to defend its patents, and you would be stretching the bow rather far to glean such an interpretation from my comments.
Instead of being needlessly emotive and silly, it would be helpful to focus on the substance of what I'm saying. I hope that this post clarifies significantly. If not, feel free to ask a question of me (perhaps without the clumsy attempts to insult me on a personal level).
To address the second point: the reason it's weak and wrong-hearted to be tired of defending patents is because it suggests that your heart is not in it; in other words, you don't feel that it is worth the effort. If you were an inventor with a patent to your name which was stolen, I think you would understand the reason why patents are worth defending. It's the implication which I object to. Yes, Tim Cook may well be tired of the legal procedures; that doesn't mean that he thinks that patents are pointless or that he should never have tried defending them in the first place. Most trolls here who say that they are tired of the constant legal battles are promoting the abolition of most or all patents. I therefore am very suspicious when you talk about being tired of the legal aspects. What do you mean by it anyway? If you find the media coverage tedious, just skip it; it's hardly difficult.
On the first point: again, it's a question of tone. You say that software is a key differential; I say that's bollocks. Software is very important, but so is hardware, so is services, so is the ecosystem. One of the key selling-points of the iPod was its form factor-it was light, slim, cool-looking and very compact and therefore mobile; all hardware features.
To address the second point: the reason it's weak and wrong-hearted to be tired of defending patents is because it suggests that your heart is not in it; in other words, you don't feel that it is worth the effort. If you were an inventor with a patent to your name which was stolen, I think you would understand the reason why patents are worth defending. It's the implication which I object to. Yes, Tim Cook may well be tired of the legal procedures; that doesn't mean that he thinks that patents are pointless or that he should never have tried defending them in the first place. Most trolls here who say that they are tired of the constant legal battles are promoting the abolition of most or all patents. I therefore am very suspicious when you talk about being tired of the legal aspects. What do you mean by it anyway? If you find the media coverage tedious, just skip it; it's hardly difficult.
On the first point: again, it's a question of tone. You say that software is a key differential; I say that's bollocks. Software is very important, but so is hardware, so is services, so is the ecosystem. One of the key selling-points of the iPod was its form factor-it was light, slim, cool-looking and very compact and therefore mobile; all hardware features.
Your first paragraph utterly ignores my post. Let me show you. Here's what I said:
Being tired of these battles does not mean that I don't support Apple's right to defend its patents.
Here's what you just said:
If you were an inventor with a patent to your name which was stolen, I think you would understand the reason why patents are worth defending. It's the implication which I object to. Yes, Tim Cook may well be tired of the legal procedures; that doesn't mean that he thinks that patents are pointless or that he should never have tried defending them in the first place.
Now, you either didn't understand my clear and plain English point or you did not read it.
Same story for your second paragraph; when are you going to actually respond to a point I've made?
Your comments almost entirely repeat what I just explained about differentials.
I sincerely hope that dreadful things happen to all who have been involved in defending Samsung. I have no faith that an appeal will reverse this gross injustice; as such, the only recourse is to hope for divine judgement.
Wow! What is your belief system - I wish to avoid it!
One in which stealing is wrong. As you wish to avoid it, I suggest you apply to work for Samsung if you don't already; they like thieves.
So if I'm not wrong you would celebrate something "dreadful" happening to someone BUT stealing is wrong?! And because I called you out on it, I might work for Samsung AND I'm a thief too?! Dude!!
You are in the UK. Britain's last important inventions were RADAR, VSTOL, the angle deck, and jet engines, some 70 years ago. Computers and Software have been for the most part very U.S. centric since the mid 50's, so naturally, the value is greater here in the U.S.
Enjoy your Samsung/
Dyson is a British company, the latest of Samsung's victims, Samsung just stole there patented tech, tied them up in court cases until they gave up and now have the temerity to sue Dyson over making the accusation.
Samsung is ruthless, they want people to get tired and give up.
They chose the wrong company when they started playing their games with Apple.
Apple should stand their ground and hit Samsung's newer devices with a new round of court cases.
I wonder how many patents Apple has on their implementation of 64 bit?
I wonder how many patents Apple has on their implementation of 64 bit?
What do you mean? There are some things that are specification based. For example ARM has specifications for a 64 bit instruction set. Saying something is 64 bit just means the registers and word sizes are 8 bytes. You can't possibly think Apple will be the only one to migrate to that. I'm also extremely skeptical that they would try to knock off Apple's chips. Their more costly devices all seem to use Qualcomm chips. I'm skeptical here because all of the legal battles thus far have been over software. You have moved into low level implementation details.
What do you mean? There are some things that are specification based. For example ARM has specifications for a 64 bit instruction set. Saying something is 64 bit just means the registers and word sizes are 8 bytes. You can't possibly think Apple will be the only one to migrate to that. I'm also extremely skeptical that they would try to knock off Apple's chips. Their more costly devices all seem to use Qualcomm chips. I'm skeptical here because all of the legal battles thus far have been over software. You have moved into low level implementation details.
Edit: well software and aesthetic design
What is the question was changed to: I wonder how many patents Apple has on their implementation of they A-series chips?
It seems unlikely. Like I mentioned they're not even using their own chips in flagship devices.
Huh?! Apple uses their A-series chips in their iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, and even their Apple TV. Between the different package designs that on the A7 include 4MiB of RAM and a "secure enclave" I could Apple having patented various aspects of their innovative designs.
Huh?! Apple uses their A-series chips in their iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, and even their Apple TV. Between the different package designs that on the A7 include 4MiB of RAM and a "secure enclave" I could Apple having patented various aspects of their innovative designs.
Oh! I thought you meant Samsung. I was referring to contention between the two companies. I meant that it's less likely that Samsung would run afoul of Apple patents on their SoCs when Samsung doesn't use their own chips in top models.
You are in the UK. Britain's last important inventions were RADAR, VSTOL, the angle deck, and jet engines, some 70 years ago. Computers and Software have been for the most part very U.S. centric since the mid 50's, so naturally, the value is greater here in the U.S.
Enjoy your Samsung/
Tim Berners-Lee might have invented something reasonably important and im sure the UK has invented the odd thing since then but as you want to say massive sweeping generalisations we in the uk do nothing but drink tea and chat with the queen.
I will enjoy my samsung smart tv, as well as other tech goodies. In fact I will enjoy all my tech goodies and when new ones are released (wife permitting) I will buy new stuff.
What is the question was changed to: I wonder how many patents Apple has on their implementation of they A-series chips?
I would think that most relevant patents are held by ARM, which owns the ARMv8 instruction set. For example Intel holds the patent to the x86 instruction set and licenses the instruction set to AMD which then implements it using its own chip designs; similarly AMD licenses the AMD64 instruction set to Intel. As for designing the chips themselves once one has an instruction set, there must be quite a few general principles involved since electrical engineers all learn microprocessor design in college and graduate school.
Oh! I thought you meant Samsung. I was referring to contention between the two companies. I meant that it's less likely that Samsung would run afoul of Apple patents on their SoCs when Samsung doesn't use their own chips in top models.
Oh, yeah, I don't think Apple needs to worry about Samsung stealing their chip designs, just curious if there is any Apple IP that can be protected here
I would think that most relevant patents are held by ARM, which owns the ARMv8 instruction set. For example Intel holds the patent to the x86 instruction set and licenses the instruction set to AMD which then implements it using its own chip designs; similarly AMD licenses the AMD64 instruction set to Intel. As for designing the chips themselves once one has an instruction set, there must be quite a few general principles involved since electrical engineers all learn microprocessor design in college and graduate school.
But outside of the ARM ISA — remember these SoCs contain many packages and it's even been said that Apple does manual layouts — there is plenty of tech that ARM didn't create. For example, can others include their own "secure enclave" that mirror's how Apple created and included theirs, or is that something that is wholly Apple's design and therefore protectable?
Tim Berners-Lee might have invented something reasonably important and im sure the UK has invented the odd thing since then but as you want to say massive sweeping generalisations we in the uk do nothing but drink tea and chat with the queen.
I will enjoy my samsung smart tv, as well as other tech goodies. In fact I will enjoy all my tech goodies and when new ones are released (wife permitting) I will buy new stuff.
Of course its an overgeneralization, but you comment as if you have no skin in the game, happy to take advantage of what are legally IP infringements in U.S. Law, and a Samsung legacy built on significant IP theft and collusion with competitors. I'm guessing Dyson isn't all that happy about IP theft, as noted by another poster.
Tim Berners-Lee invented the internet on a NeXT Computer, not on a Samsung Computer, BTW.
Of course its an overgeneralization, but you comment as if you have no skin in the game, happy to take advantage of what are legally IP infringements in U.S. Law, and a Samsung legacy built on significant IP theft and collusion with competitors. I'm guessing Dyson isn't all that happy about IP theft, as noted by another poster.
Tim Berners-Lee invented the internet on a NeXT Computer, not on a Samsung Computer, BTW.
well in Europe Samsung isn't infringing on the slide to lock patent as IIRC the German courts declared it invalid.
Due to the peculiarities of the legal systems on each side of the pond, what is infringement in one area isn't in another.
As for which computer Berners-Lee used is an irrelevancy but that's an aside.
As for the Dyson thing, no IP infringement.
Quote:
The move follows the decision by Dyson in October 2013 to drop apatent infringement case that it brought against Samsung in August, in which it claimed that the Korean giant had copied the steering system used in its Motion Sync cleaner from the Dyson DC37 and DC39 cleaners, which had then been on sale for two years.
Samsung was able to defend itself against Dyson’s case by presenting “prior art” - an example of the idea being used before Dyson had patented it.
well in Europe Samsung isn't infringing on the slide to lock patent as IIRC the German courts declared it invalid.
Due to the peculiarities of the legal systems on each side of the pond, what is infringement in one area isn't in another.
As for which computer Berners-Lee used is an irrelevancy but that's an aside.
As for the Dyson thing, no IP infringement.
"Mike Sendall buys a NeXT cube for evaluation, and gives it to Tim [Berners-Lee]. Tim's prototype implementation on NeXTStep is made in the space of a few months, thanks to the qualities of the NeXTStep software development system. This prototype offers WYSIWYG browsing/authoring! Current Web browsers used in "surfing the Internet" are mere passive windows, depriving the user of the possibility to contribute. During some sessions in the CERN cafeteria, Tim and I try to find a catching name for the system. I was determined that the name should not yet again be taken from Greek mythology. Tim proposes "World-Wide Web". I like this very much, except that it is difficult to pronounce in French..." by Robert Cailliau, 2 November 1995.[28]
Oh, yeah, I don't think Apple needs to worry about Samsung stealing their chip designs, just curious if there is any Apple IP that can be protected here
But outside of the ARM ISA — remember these SoCs contain many packages and it's even been said that Apple does manual layouts — there is plenty of tech that ARM didn't create. For example, can others include their own "secure enclave" that mirror's how Apple created and included theirs, or is that something that is wholly Apple's design and therefore protectable?
The particular implementation of an instruction set is probably copyrighted (don't quote me on this), which is why AMD and Intel don't simply copy each other's designs even when one is behind the other (like AMD is now or Intel was back in the Pentium 4 days). There's also the possibility that Apple or another ARM licensee creates their own extensions to the ISA (like AMD did with the basic 32 bit x86 ISA), for which they could indeed get patents.
The term "secure enclave" itself is just a marketing term used to package the particular collection of techniques that Apple uses. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the details to say whether the techniques used by Apple are industry-standard or were invented in-house.
The particular implementation of an instruction set is probably copyrighted (don't quote me on this), which is why AMD and Intel don't simply copy each other's designs even when one is behind the other (like AMD is now or Intel was back in the Pentium 4 days). There's also the possibility that Apple or another ARM licensee creates their own extensions to the ISA (like AMD did with the basic 32 bit x86 ISA), for which they could indeed get patents.
The term "secure enclave" itself is just a marketing term used to package the particular collection of techniques that Apple uses. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the details to say whether the techniques used by Apple are industry-standard or were invented in-house.
If they are industry standard, others would be using them by now.
Remember Apple co-founded ARM, as one of the original licensees they are not as restricted as others with what they can do.
Comments
Just how am I'm peddling? When in FACT just as Samsung was found guilty Apple was found guilty. So what you're saying is that it doesn't matter that Apple was found guilty?
Look, I think this whole thing is BS and both should fight on the field with products and not in the courts. Apple is not all that Holy as you seem to think they are. They do many bad things just like every single corporation in the world. That's just how it is unfortunately.
There is no equivalence in "guilt" between the two parties, so why even attempt it, SirLance99?
Samsung is a serial infringer and this is part and partial of its infringement pattern. Read the following:
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war
From the amount awarded versus the amount demanded it looks like a "win" for Samsung. A fine that is practically pocket change for these companies means there is no "stick" to stop any infringing behaviour. It becomes a small cost of business. Outside the two camps who will support the standpoint of their chosen one the response will be "meh" and "what are they still squabbling.. oh grow up". These sort of legal disputes are a joy to the techies, nerds, fanbois and the media but to the rest of the world.. not.
Whilst in Europe any android phone, Samsung or HTC etc can still use slide to unlock to their hearts content. as its not even a valid patent and Samsung is not even copying Aplle, though now officially not as cool.
You are in the UK. Britain's last important inventions were RADAR, VSTOL, the angle deck, and jet engines, some 70 years ago. Computers and Software have been for the most part very U.S. centric since the mid 50's, so naturally, the value is greater here in the U.S.
Enjoy your Samsung/
One can only hope. It's all getting a bit old.
Justice is always reprehensible to the unjust.
I don't take issue with the harshness (others can judge that for themselves) - the problem is that you answered a point I didn't make.
This latest post comes slightly closer, but is still filled with silly emotive rhetoric. Nevertheless, in an attempt to make my thoughts clearer, I'll have a go at responding.
On the first point about software ruling all; what's silly is if you only take that at face value and therefore misunderstand the point (which you apparently did).
The point I was making is the exact point that Steve Jobs made years ago about the iPod. He explained that on the surface, iPod is "just a small computer". What makes it a killer product is the software (and now, we might add "services" or "ecosystem" to that point).
The same is absolutely true about smart phones. The key differential is the software; the operating system and its UI, the ecosystem, the content. This does not mean that hardware can't be a differential, but software is key and Apple understands this.
Some people (perhaps the Android apologists you speak of?) occasionally suggest that no company should ever be able to patent or copyright aspects of software design. A subset of those people make valid points about "patent trolling" and overstretching the bounds of IP - but generally, what they are missing is that the competition and innovation is really being driven from the software end of things. In that kind of environment, I believe you have to allow companies to (within reason) patent and copyright designs so that there is an incentive to innovate (where those innovations can be protected from rip-offs).
On the second point...weak and wrong-hearted? Are you even serious, or are you just trolling now?
How is it weak and wrong-hearted to be tired of the constant legal battles? I would hazard a guess that Tim Cook himself is tired of them! Being tired of these battles does not mean that I don't support Apple's right to defend its patents, and you would be stretching the bow rather far to glean such an interpretation from my comments.
Instead of being needlessly emotive and silly, it would be helpful to focus on the substance of what I'm saying. I hope that this post clarifies significantly. If not, feel free to ask a question of me (perhaps without the clumsy attempts to insult me on a personal level).
To address the second point: the reason it's weak and wrong-hearted to be tired of defending patents is because it suggests that your heart is not in it; in other words, you don't feel that it is worth the effort. If you were an inventor with a patent to your name which was stolen, I think you would understand the reason why patents are worth defending. It's the implication which I object to. Yes, Tim Cook may well be tired of the legal procedures; that doesn't mean that he thinks that patents are pointless or that he should never have tried defending them in the first place. Most trolls here who say that they are tired of the constant legal battles are promoting the abolition of most or all patents. I therefore am very suspicious when you talk about being tired of the legal aspects. What do you mean by it anyway? If you find the media coverage tedious, just skip it; it's hardly difficult.
On the first point: again, it's a question of tone. You say that software is a key differential; I say that's bollocks. Software is very important, but so is hardware, so is services, so is the ecosystem. One of the key selling-points of the iPod was its form factor-it was light, slim, cool-looking and very compact and therefore mobile; all hardware features.
To address the second point: the reason it's weak and wrong-hearted to be tired of defending patents is because it suggests that your heart is not in it; in other words, you don't feel that it is worth the effort. If you were an inventor with a patent to your name which was stolen, I think you would understand the reason why patents are worth defending. It's the implication which I object to. Yes, Tim Cook may well be tired of the legal procedures; that doesn't mean that he thinks that patents are pointless or that he should never have tried defending them in the first place. Most trolls here who say that they are tired of the constant legal battles are promoting the abolition of most or all patents. I therefore am very suspicious when you talk about being tired of the legal aspects. What do you mean by it anyway? If you find the media coverage tedious, just skip it; it's hardly difficult.
On the first point: again, it's a question of tone. You say that software is a key differential; I say that's bollocks. Software is very important, but so is hardware, so is services, so is the ecosystem. One of the key selling-points of the iPod was its form factor-it was light, slim, cool-looking and very compact and therefore mobile; all hardware features.
Your first paragraph utterly ignores my post. Let me show you. Here's what I said:
Being tired of these battles does not mean that I don't support Apple's right to defend its patents.
Here's what you just said:
If you were an inventor with a patent to your name which was stolen, I think you would understand the reason why patents are worth defending. It's the implication which I object to. Yes, Tim Cook may well be tired of the legal procedures; that doesn't mean that he thinks that patents are pointless or that he should never have tried defending them in the first place.
Now, you either didn't understand my clear and plain English point or you did not read it.
Same story for your second paragraph; when are you going to actually respond to a point I've made?
Your comments almost entirely repeat what I just explained about differentials.
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost
Originally Posted by R2D2
I sincerely hope that dreadful things happen to all who have been involved in defending Samsung. I have no faith that an appeal will reverse this gross injustice; as such, the only recourse is to hope for divine judgement.
Wow! What is your belief system - I wish to avoid it!One in which stealing is wrong. As you wish to avoid it, I suggest you apply to work for Samsung if you don't already; they like thieves.
So if I'm not wrong you would celebrate something "dreadful" happening to someone BUT stealing is wrong?! And because I called you out on it, I might work for Samsung AND I'm a thief too?! Dude!!
Dyson is a British company, the latest of Samsung's victims, Samsung just stole there patented tech, tied them up in court cases until they gave up and now have the temerity to sue Dyson over making the accusation.
Samsung is ruthless, they want people to get tired and give up.
They chose the wrong company when they started playing their games with Apple.
Apple should stand their ground and hit Samsung's newer devices with a new round of court cases.
I wonder how many patents Apple has on their implementation of 64 bit?
I wonder how many patents Apple has on their implementation of 64 bit?
What do you mean? There are some things that are specification based. For example ARM has specifications for a 64 bit instruction set. Saying something is 64 bit just means the registers and word sizes are 8 bytes. You can't possibly think Apple will be the only one to migrate to that. I'm also extremely skeptical that they would try to knock off Apple's chips. Their more costly devices all seem to use Qualcomm chips. I'm skeptical here because all of the legal battles thus far have been over software. You have moved into low level implementation details.
Edit: well software and aesthetic design
What is the question was changed to: I wonder how many patents Apple has on their implementation of they A-series chips?
What is the question was changed to: I wonder how many patents Apple has on their implementation of they A-series chips?
It seems unlikely. Like I mentioned they're not even using their own chips in flagship devices.
Huh?! Apple uses their A-series chips in their iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, and even their Apple TV. Between the different package designs that on the A7 include 4MiB of RAM and a "secure enclave" I could Apple having patented various aspects of their innovative designs.
Huh?! Apple uses their A-series chips in their iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, and even their Apple TV. Between the different package designs that on the A7 include 4MiB of RAM and a "secure enclave" I could Apple having patented various aspects of their innovative designs.
Oh! I thought you meant Samsung. I was referring to contention between the two companies. I meant that it's less likely that Samsung would run afoul of Apple patents on their SoCs when Samsung doesn't use their own chips in top models.
You are in the UK. Britain's last important inventions were RADAR, VSTOL, the angle deck, and jet engines, some 70 years ago. Computers and Software have been for the most part very U.S. centric since the mid 50's, so naturally, the value is greater here in the U.S.
Enjoy your Samsung/
Tim Berners-Lee might have invented something reasonably important
and im sure the UK has invented the odd thing since then but as you want to say massive sweeping generalisations we in the uk do nothing but drink tea and chat with the queen.
I will enjoy my samsung smart tv, as well as other tech goodies. In fact I will enjoy all my tech goodies and when new ones are released (wife permitting) I will buy new stuff.
What is the question was changed to: I wonder how many patents Apple has on their implementation of they A-series chips?
I would think that most relevant patents are held by ARM, which owns the ARMv8 instruction set. For example Intel holds the patent to the x86 instruction set and licenses the instruction set to AMD which then implements it using its own chip designs; similarly AMD licenses the AMD64 instruction set to Intel. As for designing the chips themselves once one has an instruction set, there must be quite a few general principles involved since electrical engineers all learn microprocessor design in college and graduate school.
Oh, yeah, I don't think Apple needs to worry about Samsung stealing their chip designs, just curious if there is any Apple IP that can be protected here
But outside of the ARM ISA — remember these SoCs contain many packages and it's even been said that Apple does manual layouts — there is plenty of tech that ARM didn't create. For example, can others include their own "secure enclave" that mirror's how Apple created and included theirs, or is that something that is wholly Apple's design and therefore protectable?
Tim Berners-Lee might have invented something reasonably important
and im sure the UK has invented the odd thing since then but as you want to say massive sweeping generalisations we in the uk do nothing but drink tea and chat with the queen.
I will enjoy my samsung smart tv, as well as other tech goodies. In fact I will enjoy all my tech goodies and when new ones are released (wife permitting) I will buy new stuff.
Of course its an overgeneralization, but you comment as if you have no skin in the game, happy to take advantage of what are legally IP infringements in U.S. Law, and a Samsung legacy built on significant IP theft and collusion with competitors. I'm guessing Dyson isn't all that happy about IP theft, as noted by another poster.
Tim Berners-Lee invented the internet on a NeXT Computer, not on a Samsung Computer, BTW.
Of course its an overgeneralization, but you comment as if you have no skin in the game, happy to take advantage of what are legally IP infringements in U.S. Law, and a Samsung legacy built on significant IP theft and collusion with competitors. I'm guessing Dyson isn't all that happy about IP theft, as noted by another poster.
Tim Berners-Lee invented the internet on a NeXT Computer, not on a Samsung Computer, BTW.
well in Europe Samsung isn't infringing on the slide to lock patent as IIRC the German courts declared it invalid.
Due to the peculiarities of the legal systems on each side of the pond, what is infringement in one area isn't in another.
As for which computer Berners-Lee used is an irrelevancy but that's an aside.
As for the Dyson thing, no IP infringement.
The move follows the decision by Dyson in October 2013 to drop apatent infringement case that it brought against Samsung in August, in which it claimed that the Korean giant had copied the steering system used in its Motion Sync cleaner from the Dyson DC37 and DC39 cleaners, which had then been on sale for two years.
Samsung was able to defend itself against Dyson’s case by presenting “prior art” - an example of the idea being used before Dyson had patented it.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/17/samsung-dyson-vacuum-cleaner-patent-copyright
well in Europe Samsung isn't infringing on the slide to lock patent as IIRC the German courts declared it invalid.
Due to the peculiarities of the legal systems on each side of the pond, what is infringement in one area isn't in another.
As for which computer Berners-Lee used is an irrelevancy but that's an aside.
As for the Dyson thing, no IP infringement.
"Mike Sendall buys a NeXT cube for evaluation, and gives it to Tim [Berners-Lee]. Tim's prototype implementation on NeXTStep is made in the space of a few months, thanks to the qualities of the NeXTStep software development system. This prototype offers WYSIWYG browsing/authoring! Current Web browsers used in "surfing the Internet" are mere passive windows, depriving the user of the possibility to contribute. During some sessions in the CERN cafeteria, Tim and I try to find a catching name for the system. I was determined that the name should not yet again be taken from Greek mythology. Tim proposes "World-Wide Web". I like this very much, except that it is difficult to pronounce in French..." by Robert Cailliau, 2 November 1995.[28]
Hardly irrelevant.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2011/oct/16/tim-berners-lee-steve-jobs
Oh, yeah, I don't think Apple needs to worry about Samsung stealing their chip designs, just curious if there is any Apple IP that can be protected here
But outside of the ARM ISA — remember these SoCs contain many packages and it's even been said that Apple does manual layouts — there is plenty of tech that ARM didn't create. For example, can others include their own "secure enclave" that mirror's how Apple created and included theirs, or is that something that is wholly Apple's design and therefore protectable?
The particular implementation of an instruction set is probably copyrighted (don't quote me on this), which is why AMD and Intel don't simply copy each other's designs even when one is behind the other (like AMD is now or Intel was back in the Pentium 4 days). There's also the possibility that Apple or another ARM licensee creates their own extensions to the ISA (like AMD did with the basic 32 bit x86 ISA), for which they could indeed get patents.
The term "secure enclave" itself is just a marketing term used to package the particular collection of techniques that Apple uses. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the details to say whether the techniques used by Apple are industry-standard or were invented in-house.
The particular implementation of an instruction set is probably copyrighted (don't quote me on this), which is why AMD and Intel don't simply copy each other's designs even when one is behind the other (like AMD is now or Intel was back in the Pentium 4 days). There's also the possibility that Apple or another ARM licensee creates their own extensions to the ISA (like AMD did with the basic 32 bit x86 ISA), for which they could indeed get patents.
The term "secure enclave" itself is just a marketing term used to package the particular collection of techniques that Apple uses. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the details to say whether the techniques used by Apple are industry-standard or were invented in-house.
If they are industry standard, others would be using them by now.
Remember Apple co-founded ARM, as one of the original licensees they are not as restricted as others with what they can do.
Here's what Apple is up against as these IP infringement cases continue:
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war