After partial win, Apple comments on second Samsung trial as award grows

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 104
    crysisftwcrysisftw Posts: 128member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post





    Great apple can bring more patents. Hopefully they will be stronger than the joke software patents its been using.



    Hopefully by 2015-2016 we live in a patent system that treats software patents differently.

     

    You are not getting it. Hardware used to be important a long time ago. Ever since Apple popularised the 'GUI' based modern computers for the masses, software has gained a wild popularity. Microsoft followed the GUI act on its own Windows, which would become, by a long margin, the most popular OS on desktop and notebook computers within a decade.

     

    What I want to say, is that software is important. Even one infringement on a software patent results in a number of lost sales to the plaintiff. Again, what you are doing is quantifying individual patents. You are failing to realise that software IS made up of such small, ostensibly useless, 'joke' patents.

     

    So according to you, it's okay to continue to infringe on these risible patents, because you have a good laugh out of it and because they are so insignificant that they shouldn't even matter. Keep making iOS and OS X clones based on this theory, and technically we have a new OS, and we shouldn't even infringe on any patents because it would be so unreasonable to file a suit based on these comic patents. So, what sort of new patent system would you like to see in 2015-16 for software?

  • Reply 82 of 104
    rayzrayz Posts: 814member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

     

    Do you really think the iPhone was just a bunch of ideas "scribble down" while drinking a latte? It was 5 years in development and thousands of man hours.  And because your misinformed let me correct you on the oft incorrectly used Apple copied Xerox meme.  Apple did not copy xerox.

    They were invited to PARC research at Xerox where Xerox had very very early and crude versions of a GUI and using a very crude object oriented point and click environment on a computer that was a prototype called the Alto.  IT was not patented.  Steve Jobs was invited there to see this.  In fact about half of the original Macintosh team were former PARC employees.  Before Apple visited PARC they had already been working on there own gui with a mouse and point and click.  They asked the folks at PARC if they could use some of the ideas the y saw and incorporate them into the macintosh gui they were already working on.  They agreed to let Apple use some of there ideas.  In return for this Steve Jobs gave them a substantial portion of original issue stock in apple computers first stock offering.  The deal was signed and Xerox got there shares of Apple stock in return for the use of there ideas.  Xerox later sold those shares of apple stock which today would be worth billions and billions of dollars.

    Apple did not steal PARC's ideas they were paid for them and agreed to it.


     

    Amazing how often you still here that old Xerox story, isn't it?

     

    Here are a few other desperate statement that have made the rounds over the past couple of days:

     

    Hah! See Apple is also a slavish, criminal copier! Forgetting that two wrongs don't make a right, it seems that a number of Android fans believe that Apple being found guilty of infringing on an essentially worthless patent (c'mon, $152,000? That wouldn't even buy a house) was some sort of turning point, and now Apple is now as low as Samsung. 

    To begin with, being found guilty of infringement is nothing new for Apple. 

     

    http://bgr.com/2012/12/13/apple-guilty-patent-infringement-iphone/

     

    Secondly, there is a big difference being found guilty of patent infringement, and being found guilty of wilful patent infringement. The first is because you didn't check and find an obscure patent that is essentially worthless ($152,000); the second is because you deliberately stole someone else's hard work ($119million).

     

    Hah! Apple didn't get anywhere near what they asked for! This is true, but did anyone think Apple was really going to land such an outrageous amount of money? I'm pretty sure Apple's lawyers didn't. But this case has always been more about sending a message than actually making money (which is just as well because so far, Apple has made zilch).  The message has been sent: If you steal how stuff, no matter how trivial the patent, then we will drag you through every court on the planet, no matter what it costs us – and what it costs you. But what Apple was expecting was a larger amount than this because it needs to ensure that folk understand the expense involved in copying their stuff.

     

    Samsung has already confessed to having copied Apple's stuff; what they're fighting for is to minimise the costs of doing so. And this is a fight they cannot afford to lose. Samsung's R&D is poorly-focussed and ineffective. They cannot skate to wear the puck is going to be, so they send out fifty blind hockey players on to the ice and get them to skate around until the puck runs into one of them. Their poor attempt at fingerprint recognition is one example; too little too late. 

     

    The awful Galaxy Gear smart watch: foisted on an unsuspecting market as soon as they heard Apple was working on a smart watch. A calculated gamble: get something out their first, no matter how bad it is, then no one can say we copied Apple. Not sure this will work, because their smartphones were on sale before Apple released the iPhone. The problem was with what their phones turned into as soon as they took a close look at the iPhone. 

  • Reply 83 of 104
    technarchytechnarchy Posts: 296member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

     

    Apple has yet to include the S4 or the S5.  They tried with the S4 but the Judge would not allow it in this trial.  It has nothing to do with not getting much mileage, when in your vernacular the car has not even left the garage and started driving down the road for those models yet (as in there have been no lawsuits allowed on the S4 or S5 yet).


     

    Samsung devices are getting further removed from their more contentious catalog from a couple of years ago, with the saying "designed by lawyers" becoming increasingly common when it comes to devices that compete with Apple currently.

     

    As patent disputes becomes less applicable, these stories will start to fade to something occasional rather than daily.

  • Reply 84 of 104
    retiariusretiarius Posts: 142member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KPOM View Post





    That's not how patent law works. Google doesn't make phones and they don't charge for Android software. $0 revenue times anything is still $0. Apple can't directly go after Google's ad revenue.

    Two words: "contributory infringement" ...

    Two more words: "direct infringement":

     

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contributory_infringement

  • Reply 85 of 104
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rayz View Post

     

     

    Amazing how often you still here that old Xerox story, isn't it?

     

    Here are a few other desperate statement that have made the rounds over the past couple of days:

     

    Hah! See Apple is also a slavish, criminal copier! Forgetting that two wrongs don't make a right, it seems that a number of Android fans believe that Apple being found guilty of infringing on an essentially worthless patent (c'mon, $152,000? That wouldn't even buy a house) was some sort of turning point, and now Apple is now as low as Samsung. 

    To begin with, being found guilty of infringement is nothing new for Apple. 

     

    http://bgr.com/2012/12/13/apple-guilty-patent-infringement-iphone/

     

    Secondly, there is a big difference being found guilty of patent infringement, and being found guilty of wilful patent infringement. The first is because you didn't check and find an obscure patent that is essentially worthless ($152,000); the second is because you deliberately stole someone else's hard work ($119million).

     

    Hah! Apple didn't get anywhere near what they asked for! This is true, but did anyone think Apple was really going to land such an outrageous amount of money? I'm pretty sure Apple's lawyers didn't. But this case has always been more about sending a message than actually making money (which is just as well because so far, Apple has made zilch).  The message has been sent: If you steal how stuff, no matter how trivial the patent, then we will drag you through every court on the planet, no matter what it costs us – and what it costs you. But what Apple was expecting was a larger amount than this because it needs to ensure that folk understand the expense involved in copying their stuff.

     

    Samsung has already confessed to having copied Apple's stuff; what they're fighting for is to minimise the costs of doing so. And this is a fight they cannot afford to lose. Samsung's R&D is poorly-focussed and ineffective. They cannot skate to wear the puck is going to be, so they send out fifty blind hockey players on to the ice and get them to skate around until the puck runs into one of them. Their poor attempt at fingerprint recognition is one example; too little too late. 

     

    The awful Galaxy Gear smart watch: foisted on an unsuspecting market as soon as they heard Apple was working on a smart watch. A calculated gamble: get something out their first, no matter how bad it is, then no one can say we copied Apple. Not sure this will work, because their smartphones were on sale before Apple released the iPhone. The problem was with what their phones turned into as soon as they took a close look at the iPhone. 


     

    This behaviour is par for the course for Samsung, they did it to Sharp, Pioneer and now Apple according to this article in Vanity Fair

     

    Samsung are ruthless in their will to dominate any market they enter and will use any means to get their way.

     

    Stealing others work and creating long drawn out court battles is what they have always excelled at.

  • Reply 86 of 104
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    mechanic wrote: »
    Do you really think the iPhone was just a bunch of ideas "scribble down" while drinking a latte? It was 5 years in development and thousands of man hours.  And because your misinformed let me correct you on the oft incorrectly used Apple copied Xerox meme.  Apple did not copy xerox.
    They were invited to PARC research at Xerox where Xerox had very very early and crude versions of a GUI and using a very crude object oriented point and click environment on a computer that was a prototype called the Alto.  IT was not patented.  Steve Jobs was invited there to see this.  In fact about half of the original Macintosh team were former PARC employees.  Before Apple visited PARC they had already been working on there own gui with a mouse and point and click.  They asked the folks at PARC if they could use some of the ideas the y saw and incorporate them into the macintosh gui they were already working on.  They agreed to let Apple use some of there ideas.  In return for this Steve Jobs gave them a substantial portion of original issue stock in apple computers first stock offering.  The deal was signed and Xerox got there shares of Apple stock in return for the use of there ideas.  Xerox later sold those shares of apple stock which today would be worth billions and billions of dollars.
    Apple did not steal PARC's ideas they were paid for them and agreed to it.
    No I am not misinformed and I do think that most ideas are spontaneous and formed out of the working context and that an idea is fine but it's implementation is the actual achievement.
    My point is that Apple wasn't infringing on Xerox because they had to do the implementation (and didn't steal the source code).
    But they did copy Xerox and it doesn't matter if they paid for it or Xerox agreed to it or Xerox didn't patent it (or do you think that it is right to steal something if it isn't protected?)
  • Reply 87 of 104
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by knowitall View Post

    But they did copy Xerox

     

    No.

     

    …or do you think that it is right to steal something if it isn’t protected?


     

    Do you not know what theft is?

  • Reply 88 of 104
    wetlanderwetlander Posts: 38member
    knowitall wrote: »
    No I am not misinformed and I do think that most ideas are spontaneous and formed out of the working context and that an idea is fine but it's implementation is the actual achievement.

    The idea creates the value; any engineer can implement something. Just look at Samsung documents!
  • Reply 89 of 104
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,812member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by knowitall View Post



    No, I am saying that the hard work is the implementation, not the idea scribbled on while drinking a latte and that ideas shouldn't be patentable.

     

    Scribbled on … what? I assume you were going to say "scribbled on a patent application" because that's what utility and design patents are (in layman's terms): ideas written down. It's awful naive to assume there's no hard work involved. And secondly, you don't patent implementations (e.g., source code). You protect implementations with copyrights.

  • Reply 90 of 104
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    No.

     

    Do you not know what theft is?


     

    Yes, denying a fact isn't very constructive.

    Yes, I know what theft is, but it seems that you don't.

  • Reply 91 of 104
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

     

     

    Scribbled on … what? I assume you were going to say "scribbled on a patent application" because that's what utility and design patents are (in layman's terms): ideas written down. It's awful naive to assume there's no hard work involved. And secondly, you don't patent implementations (e.g., source code). You protect implementations with copyrights.


    My argument is against the current patent system, you seem to have missed that.

  • Reply 92 of 104
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by knowitall View Post

    Yes, denying a fact isn't very constructive.


     

    I agree. So where’s the fact, exactly?

     

    Yes, I know what theft is…


     

    Then you calling the aforementioned content theft is pretty darn confusing. In fact, it’s indicative of not knowing what the word ‘theft’ means.

  • Reply 93 of 104
    yojimbo007yojimbo007 Posts: 1,163member
    Samsung vs apple.
    This js the picture ... Get ready samy..

    http://flic.kr/p/ndWNKe

    Distribute at will
    .
    .
  • Reply 94 of 104
    crysisftwcrysisftw Posts: 128member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fatboyharrison View Post



    ...oh so just imagine the mobile landscape now if apple had "stuck" to just macs?

     

    Better still, imagine the current computer lansdscape now if Apple hadn't bothered with Mac!

  • Reply 95 of 104
    d4njvrzfd4njvrzf Posts: 797member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by crysisftw View Post

     

     

    Better still, imagine the current computer lansdscape now if Apple hadn't bothered with Mac!


    Or imagine the current software landscape if software patents had been popular when the fundamental ideas in software were being developed (e.g. every technique described in CLRS). Bill G once opined: "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/09/opinion/09lee.html?_r=0)

  • Reply 96 of 104
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Then you calling the aforementioned content theft is pretty darn confusing. In fact, it’s indicative of not knowing what the word ‘theft’ means.


    Can you explain what you mean (and be a little constructive)?

    Or do you like to wisecrack only?

  • Reply 97 of 104
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by knowitall View Post

    Can you explain what you mean

     

    Sure thing: APPLE STOLE NOTHING FROM XEROX. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEFT IS.

     

    Got it?

  • Reply 98 of 104
    crysisftwcrysisftw Posts: 128member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

     

    Or imagine the current software landscape if software patents had been popular when the fundamental ideas in software were being developed (e.g. every technique described in CLRS). Bill G once opined: "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."


     

    Yes, and that was Bill Gates' excuse for ripping off several products. He also used the position of the severly popular Windows to establish several monopolies in the market, killing companies like Netscape. Talk about a 'standstill industry' and a 'sly usage of patents'.

  • Reply 99 of 104
    d4njvrzfd4njvrzf Posts: 797member
    Quote:

     Yes, and that was Bill Gates' excuse for ripping off several products. He also used the position of the severly popular Windows to establish several monopolies in the market, killing companies like Netscape. Talk about a 'standstill industry' and a 'sly usage of patents'.


    Don Knuth wrote around the same time as the Bill Gates quote: 

     

    "When I think of the computer programs I require daily to get my own work done, I cannot help but realize that none of them would exist today if software patents had been prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s." (http://progfree.org/Patents/knuth-to-pto.txt)

     

    Knuth is one of the most influential figures in the history of software. What "excuse" did he need?

  • Reply 100 of 104
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Sure thing: APPLE STOLE NOTHING FROM XEROX. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEFT IS.

     

    Got it?


    Yes, your a wisecrack only.

Sign In or Register to comment.