I guess someone should have clued in Samsung. I suspect they knew better though I'm sure they thought getting the media, especially the tech press to go with this meme would be beneficial.
It made for a good sound bite. A lot of the statements lawyers make to the press are meant to serve that purpose. Accuracy is less important than seeing it repeated by the media.
Most of you already commented on the trade dress, I too agree if anything Samsung copied this more than anything else. How when this was brought up initially I was wondering if it would hold up. Reasoning being I did not think Apple could claim this since the iPhone was not on the market long enough to establish trade dress. Many times you have to show over yes how you establish your trade dress. I think Apple was short on time.
I did not read the findings and the judges my have address why trade dress was thrown out.
Most of you already commented on the trade dress, I too agree if anything Samsung copied this more than anything else. How when this was brought up initially I was wondering if it would hold up. Reasoning being I did not think Apple could claim this since the iPhone was not on the market long enough to establish trade dress. Many times you have to show over yes how you establish your trade dress. I think Apple was short on time.
I did not read the findings and the judges my have address why trade dress was thrown out.
Reading the list they look vague, and generic. The first four could apply to digital photo frames, and flat panel TVs that were being made prior to the iPhone.
Does this really matter anymore? Apple was more interested in setting an example for everyone that they will pursue anyone who violates their IP. The money never really mattered (even though many tried to imply Apple sues when they can't compete).
Apple has already won the war by creating superior products that people want making them the most valuable tech company on the planet.
IMO it could end up hurting tech overall if Apple is the only one left standing. They're doing quite fine without owning everything in sight, plus with competition it helps them avoid antitrust issues for the most part.
Owning fundamental technologies does not violate antitrust.
Who decided that? A panel of "judges" who didn't agree that "trade dress" was meaningful? This decision makes a mockery of the whole concept of trade dress. In effect, it's saying the only thing illegal is a counterfeit that looks EXACTLY like the original!
There is no question that Samsung copied Apple. The question is does that really hurt Apple sales. I think this is the rule the appeals court used for the trade dress IP issue.
Owning fundamental technologies does not violate antitrust.
According to Google, if you create something that could be considered a "fundamental technology", then you should be forced to license it to everyone as a SEP, even if you don't want to declare it as such.
According to Google, if you create something that could be considered a "fundamental technology", then you should be forced to license it to everyone as a SEP, even if you don't want to declare it as such.
According to Google, if you create something that could be considered a "fundamental technology", then you should be forced to license it to everyone as a SEP, even if you don't want to declare it as such.
That position would support Google's mission to steal.
According to Google, if you create something that could be considered a "fundamental technology", then you should be forced to license it to everyone as a SEP, even if you don't want to declare it as such.
Not claiming it's FUD but where did they say that and what specifically did they say?
With that out of the way of course a "fundamental patent" would by definition be one that is essential for anyone wishing to offer a similar product with the technology, correct? Just checking on how you're defining the terms.
EDIT: Somewhat surprisingly IMHO the idea of "compulsory licensing" while already an element of IP law in some countries is now being mentioned here in US legislative halls too.
This thread makes me laugh. You really think normal non-techy people know or care about these patent battles? They don't. Even if they did know about them they wouldn't give two hoots if Samsung copies Apple, or if anyone copied anyone. All they care about is getting a cool device that meets their needs. This is true for the vast majority of the Smartphone marketplace. Only a small segment of tech nerds care about this stuff.
You guys talking about this patent war having an impact on Samsung's reputation and that affecting their profits are nuts.
The main thing that affected their profits was the poorly designed S5. That has nothing to do with the patent war.
According to Google, if you create something that could be considered a "fundamental technology", then you should be forced to license it to everyone as a SEP, even if you don't want to declare it as such.
Google contradicts itself. On one side it says Apple never invented anything. Then it turns around saying Apple created "fundamental technology". This is very childish.
Google contradicts itself. On one side it says Apple never invented anything. Then it turns around saying Apple created "fundamental technology". This is very childish.
The lawsuits have done their job: Showed that Samsung is a copycat company not an elite innovator.
Just look at how their profits have dipped 75% the last 2 years.
Mission accomplished.
@sog35 : Samsung's sales really took off as the legal battle with Apple began in 2012. It was ultimately the Chinese phone makers who brought them down last year. So I'm not sure if the lawsuits had any significant impact on Samsung's sales. I also speculate that most consumers don't know or even care at all about these on-going lawsuits.
Comments
I did not read the findings and the judges my have address why trade dress was thrown out.
Did you not read the list?
Reading the list they look vague, and generic. The first four could apply to digital photo frames, and flat panel TVs that were being made prior to the iPhone.
Does this really matter anymore? Apple was more interested in setting an example for everyone that they will pursue anyone who violates their IP. The money never really mattered (even though many tried to imply Apple sues when they can't compete).
Apple has already won the war by creating superior products that people want making them the most valuable tech company on the planet.
@freerange : Apple lost on all ....
@Rogifan : according to ....
Uh oh. tooltalk has shown up.
I predict that things go downhill from here on: I am out of this thread.
Nothing on that list is covered in design patents?
Uh oh. tooltalk has shown up.
I predict that things go downhill from here on: I am out of this thread.
Why should that cause you any grief? I didn't even realize he showed up until you quoted him. Just add him to your block list like most of us have.
Owning fundamental technologies does not violate antitrust.
Who decided that? A panel of "judges" who didn't agree that "trade dress" was meaningful? This decision makes a mockery of the whole concept of trade dress. In effect, it's saying the only thing illegal is a counterfeit that looks EXACTLY like the original!
There is no question that Samsung copied Apple. The question is does that really hurt Apple sales. I think this is the rule the appeals court used for the trade dress IP issue.
Owning fundamental technologies does not violate antitrust.
According to Google, if you create something that could be considered a "fundamental technology", then you should be forced to license it to everyone as a SEP, even if you don't want to declare it as such.
According to Google, if you create something that could be considered a "fundamental technology", then you should be forced to license it to everyone as a SEP, even if you don't want to declare it as such.
Unless of course, you are Google.
That position would support Google's mission to steal.
With that out of the way of course a "fundamental patent" would by definition be one that is essential for anyone wishing to offer a similar product with the technology, correct? Just checking on how you're defining the terms.
EDIT: Somewhat surprisingly IMHO the idea of "compulsory licensing" while already an element of IP law in some countries is now being mentioned here in US legislative halls too.
Apparently not. They're mostly too vague to be awarded a patent. There were lots of devices that fit some of those trade dresses prior to the iPhone.
You guys talking about this patent war having an impact on Samsung's reputation and that affecting their profits are nuts.
The main thing that affected their profits was the poorly designed S5. That has nothing to do with the patent war.
According to Google, if you create something that could be considered a "fundamental technology", then you should be forced to license it to everyone as a SEP, even if you don't want to declare it as such.
Google contradicts itself. On one side it says Apple never invented anything. Then it turns around saying Apple created "fundamental technology". This is very childish.
Who give a crap.
The lawsuits have done their job: Showed that Samsung is a copycat company not an elite innovator.
Just look at how their profits have dipped 75% the last 2 years.
Mission accomplished.
@sog35 : Samsung's sales really took off as the legal battle with Apple began in 2012. It was ultimately the Chinese phone makers who brought them down last year. So I'm not sure if the lawsuits had any significant impact on Samsung's sales. I also speculate that most consumers don't know or even care at all about these on-going lawsuits.