Amount of handsets in Europe that are affected = 0. EU Countries this ban affects = 1 EU countries it doesn't affect=27. EU population unaffected ~490 million Any connection to the other IP that Samsung lost on in the US ... totally irrelevant as there are differing legal systems and patent law as the example of the bounce back and slide to unlock are non patentable IP in Germany one of the biggest markets in Germany.
It will not happen in the US due to playoffs in Washington, DC. It is my belief both Google and Samsung have spent millions of US dollars lining politician pockets to block all attempts to reign in guilty verdicts against them in US court rooms.
With the Wizards out, there are no playoffs in DC right now. Did you mean payoffs?
With the way Data Detectors are implemented in Android, it's not Android but rather the individual app developers that are "infringing." The system itself provides no engine for detecting and transforming data.
That is one dumb way of implementing such a useful thing.
"...new models infringe?" That is Entirely beside the point. If Samsung had $2 Billion profit on the offending smart phones... then the penalty should be $2 Billion X 3 = $6 Billion. THAT should get their attention.
"...new models infringe?" That is Entirely beside the point. If Samsung had $2 Billion profit on the offending smart phones... then the penalty should be $2 Billion X 3 = $6 Billion. THAT should get their attention.
I know this one isn't about data detectors. I believe there should be one in the US with regard to it and the other patents that Samsung has been found to infringe. The US should actually enforce a sales ban for these patents or they shouldn't have a patent system.
If they enforced a sales ban, Samsung would have these features ripped out before a ban would go into effect. I don't think for a second they would loose any sales. Right now, Apple has no real means to protect their IP since the sales ban was denied. Winning money is a start, but it is too little too late. The infringement needs to stop. Now that she got overturned, I'm hopeful they can get a ban.
Are you not paying attention? The trial that Samsung just lost included the data detector patent.
Yes, they lost the trial. Apple had tried to get a ban before and the judge said no. Since then the appellate court struck down the judges ruling. This is why I'm hopeful they will now have a shot at a sales ban based on data detectors. The court cases are proving infringement and awarding damages and royalties to Apple, but a ban would make Samsung actually have to workaround the patents in some inferior manner like they do with the blue flash instead of rubberbanding. Blue flash sucks.
That is one dumb way of implementing such a useful thing.
Exactly. Performing an in-app search and replace is the most naive method for implementing data detectors. It's the first approach that any programmer would consider if they had to parse phone numbers or web uri's, since regular expressions were invented precisely to let the programmer detect and process these patterns (as well as any other pattern expressible as a regular expression), and not to mention that this method is commonly used in web apps (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/37684/how-to-replace-plain-urls-with-links). If a patent effectively cripples a general tool -- such as by restricting how programmers may use find-and-replace in their own apps -- it would seem that something is gravely wrong with the interpretation of its claims.
Edit: even the AI site uses Data Detectors (provided by Viglink: http://www.viglink.com/how-it-works). Hasn't anyone noticed certain words or phrases in their posts (annoyingly) transformed into links to various product webpages?
It includes all future infringing produces. That is way a sales ban is important. Not like the patent trials where they are so far behind on models. Now that Koh's decision was overturned, I really hope we see a ban.
Right.
Question: How many of the new models infringe?
Answer: None
How many would have infringed had Apple not taken them to court?
Okay... fine. Samsung lost on appeals, and it will also cover current and future devices - if any.
So, will someone please explain if this means Apple can get damages for all those devices that were sold? I want this to hurt Samsung in the pocketbook.
At some point the courts will have to see that Samsung is using/abusing the courts and realize Samsung is taking advantage of the years it takes to come to a decision, which by then is largely obsolete and/or irrelevant.
Although it isn't the current method, I think a judge should take the initiative and say that the compensation due Apple for the infringing devices of Samsung is the retail price of the device in question. That way, it will really hit Samsung where it hurts - in their revenue and profits.
Comments
Any connection to the other IP that Samsung lost on in the US ... totally irrelevant as there are differing legal systems and patent law as the example of the bounce back and slide to unlock are non patentable IP in Germany one of the biggest markets in Germany.
It will not happen in the US due to playoffs in Washington, DC. It is my belief both Google and Samsung have spent millions of US dollars lining politician pockets to block all attempts to reign in guilty verdicts against them in US court rooms.
With the Wizards out, there are no playoffs in DC right now. Did you mean payoffs?
Yup, see them being offered at many places. Online as well:
http://mobiel.kpn.com
So, 4xApple, 5xSamsung, 1xLG, 1xSony, 1xHTC on the first product page, which is by no means an accurate assessment.
That is one dumb way of implementing such a useful thing.
Question: How many of the new models infringe?
Answer: None
"...new models infringe?" That is Entirely beside the point. If Samsung had $2 Billion profit on the offending smart phones... then the penalty should be $2 Billion X 3 = $6 Billion. THAT should get their attention.
I ask you to please read this article and then defend Samsung in any way, shape or manner: The Great Smartphone War (http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war)
...thank you to the AI person that first posted this link... I don't remember who to credit.
"...new models infringe?" That is Entirely beside the point. If Samsung had $2 Billion profit on the offending smart phones... then the penalty should be $2 Billion X 3 = $6 Billion. THAT should get their attention.
I ask you to please read this article and then defend Samsung in any way, shape or manner: The Great Smartphone War (http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war)
...thank you to the AI person that first posted this link... I don't remember who to credit.
I'm going to be kind, no matter how much I feel otherwise.
Could you please show everyone exactly how I have defended Samsung in my comment.
Thank you.
That is one dumb way of implementing such a useful thing.
Exactly. Performing an in-app search and replace is the most naive method for implementing data detectors. It's the first approach that any programmer would consider if they had to parse phone numbers or web uri's, since regular expressions were invented precisely to let the programmer detect and process these patterns (as well as any other pattern expressible as a regular expression), and not to mention that this method is commonly used in web apps (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/37684/how-to-replace-plain-urls-with-links). If a patent effectively cripples a general tool -- such as by restricting how programmers may use find-and-replace in their own apps -- it would seem that something is gravely wrong with the interpretation of its claims.
Edit: even the AI site uses Data Detectors (provided by Viglink: http://www.viglink.com/how-it-works). Hasn't anyone noticed certain words or phrases in their posts (annoyingly) transformed into links to various product webpages?
It includes all future infringing produces. That is way a sales ban is important. Not like the patent trials where they are so far behind on models. Now that Koh's decision was overturned, I really hope we see a ban.
Right.
Question: How many of the new models infringe?
Answer: None
How many would have infringed had Apple not taken them to court?
All of them.
Okay... fine. Samsung lost on appeals, and it will also cover current and future devices - if any.
So, will someone please explain if this means Apple can get damages for all those devices that were sold? I want this to hurt Samsung in the pocketbook.
At some point the courts will have to see that Samsung is using/abusing the courts and realize Samsung is taking advantage of the years it takes to come to a decision, which by then is largely obsolete and/or irrelevant.
Although it isn't the current method, I think a judge should take the initiative and say that the compensation due Apple for the infringing devices of Samsung is the retail price of the device in question. That way, it will really hit Samsung where it hurts - in their revenue and profits.
...Could you please show everyone exactly how I have defended Samsung in my comment.
Thank you.
My apologies. You didn't defend Samsung.
And I still believe it's a great article in Vanity Fair.