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.
Believe it or not, licensing fees for patents make up a huge part of the cost of mobile phones. Companies that don't adhere to these IP licensing costs, like Xioaomi, have a clear cost advantage over their global rivals.
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.
Most people are tech idiots. They only care if they can use any device conveniently. That is, very little difference between device A or B. But this is the essence of patents. The patents forbid companies to make devices working exactly the same.
What did Google say in this Apple vs Samsung trial? Google is the real evil behind all this battle. All these patent violations validated by the court were built into the Android OS not added by Samsung.
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.
The "block list" is silly. It blocks out nothing, as you've just shown. In fact, the more incendiary the post, the more responses it generates, and hence the tougher it is to truly block.
But Samsung does sooooooo much for Marshall, TX. Or Maybe not enough!?
not sure what you mean.. this case has nothing to do with the Eastern District of TX. Samsung's PR campaign in TX has more to do with the patent trolls than Apple.
Thanks. I kinda remember that but not the details. Appreciate the link.
So that's not exactly what they said. That was the authors opined translation of it.
I do get their point in a way tho as I'm sure you would if it were a different company. Note that Qualcomm, Nokia and Ericcson are among the companies that now say they'll not be licensing wi-fi patents under the IEEE's newly decided standards-essential licensing terms. Going forward they'll do the contracts as individually-negotiated deals, each one possibly unique. Assume Nokia, for competitive reasons, decides they'll no longer license a fundamental wi-fi patent(s) to Apple, period. They simply want Apple devices making use of it barred from the market. What should be their recourse? Is there a reason that competition authorities should consider how such an event should be dealt with as long as they're looking at the landscape as a whole?
Before you say that couldn't happen I think at some point it could become a distinct possibility from some patent holder.
This money means nothing for Apple. They've returned over $100B to the shareholders in the past few years.
At least the court upheld the patent violations. This is still a bad news for Samsung. There were lot of samsung defenders saying the jury was tainted/biased/don't know what they're doing/etc after the initial judgement. They can't use this excuse anymore.
@john12345 : I doubt Samsung is going to stop here. I'm a bit surprised that the appeal court upheld Apple's design patents that disgorged Samsung's "entire profit" without any apportionment, where the court applied rules appropriate for few-component furnitures v. multi-component communication devices. This is also potentially bad for Apple in its lawsuit against Ericsson, though they are dealing with two different types of patents.
Nope. Can you help out with a link to where Google said Apple never invented anything?
I said Google built the Apple patents into the Android OS. I did not find Google say it did. So not able to find what Google said explicitly is immaterial. Google had some collaborator put an android pissing on Apple. What did Google say about it?
Samsung is getting DESTROYED where it counts: Profits.
The $900 million is pocket change for Apple. The main objective is to prove to the world that Samsung is a 2nd class company and they have done it.
You're right, the money is secondary. Look what happens when Samsung releases products that don't look like an iPhone. It hurt profits enough that they had to go back to copying the same general look of the iPhone 6, with exception of the back of the phone. Even got rid of the few features that used to distinguish their phones like the micro SD, removable battery and waterproofing.
@john12345 : I doubt Samsung is going to stop here. I'm a bit surprised that the appeal court upheld Apple's design patents that disgorged Samsung's "entire profit" without any apportionment, where the court applied rules appropriate for few-component furnitures v. multi-component communication devices. This is also potentially bad for Apple in its lawsuit against Ericsson, though they are dealing with two different types of patents.
Erissson lawsuit is completely different. Apple is willing to pay license fees. So there is no patent violation here.
Google had some collaborator put an android pissing on Apple. What did Google say about it?
A Google spokesperson said that it is “sorry for this inappropriate user-created content; we’re working to remove it quickly” and that “the vast majority of users who edit our maps provide great contributions.”
The company also said that “we also learn from these issues, and we’re constantly improving how we detect, prevent and handle bad listings".
The end result is that they've removed the user-edit option altogether as of a few days ago and it will stay gone until they can redesign it so that it doesn't happen again.
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.
Agreed but let us not forget all the discussions here on AI at the time that Apple probably felt going after Samsung was easier than the going after the real cause of the problem, Google. Especially as Google gave away the shit for free. It seems to have been repeated too often here by the pro Google troll that 'nothing was ever stolen by Google' and it seems to have worked. How easily history is rewritten.
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.
@Maestro64 : There are some restrictions on what can be trademarked, and the court notes, "trademark law allows for a perpetual monopoly and its use in the protection of “physical details and design of a product” must be limited to those that are “nonfunctional." That's a pretty important factor to consider in trade dress cases and that's been Samsung's main argument against the first ruling all along. The court likewise found that Apple failed to show there was "substantial evidence in the record to support a jury finding in favor of non-functionality." (p7-p14)
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.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Just not sure why you read a blog by and for 'tech nerds' as you put it. You seem to have all the answers you need. Personally I care about facts because one, I've made my living with Apple products directly or indirectly since 1978 and two, I have a pretty large investment in the company. Hence I listen and learn from those that know. It's stood me in good stead over the years. Thanks for the laugh though.
Erissson lawsuit is completely different. Apple is willing to pay license fees. So there is no patent violation here.
@tzeshan : Apple is challenging Ericsson on multiple fronts (eg, validity, non-infringement), but their main contention is that Ericsson's royalty rate should be based on smallest salable unit v. entire device (ie, approportionment) in multicomponent products -- and their rate should be accordingly much lower.
@tzeshan : Apple is challenging Ericsson on multiple fronts (eg, validity, non-infringement), but their main contention is that Ericsson's royalty rate should be based on smallest salable unit v. entire device (ie, approportionment) in multicomponent products -- and their rate should be accordingly much lower.
I think the real issue is Ericsson wants to charge Apple at a much higher rate than it collects from other makers.
Comments
Believe it or not, licensing fees for patents make up a huge part of the cost of mobile phones. Companies that don't adhere to these IP licensing costs, like Xioaomi, have a clear cost advantage over their global rivals.
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.
Most people are tech idiots. They only care if they can use any device conveniently. That is, very little difference between device A or B. But this is the essence of patents. The patents forbid companies to make devices working exactly the same.
Not claiming it's FUD but where did they say that and what specifically did they say?
Do you not remember this?
http://allthingsd.com/20120720/google-claims-popularity-has-made-some-apple-patents-de-facto-essentials/
They really said that??
What did Google say in this Apple vs Samsung trial? Google is the real evil behind all this battle. All these patent violations validated by the court were built into the Android OS not added by Samsung.
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.
The "block list" is silly. It blocks out nothing, as you've just shown. In fact, the more incendiary the post, the more responses it generates, and hence the tougher it is to truly block.
But Samsung does sooooooo much for Marshall, TX. Or Maybe not enough!?
not sure what you mean.. this case has nothing to do with the Eastern District of TX. Samsung's PR campaign in TX has more to do with the patent trolls than Apple.
So that's not exactly what they said. That was the authors opined translation of it.
I do get their point in a way tho as I'm sure you would if it were a different company. Note that Qualcomm, Nokia and Ericcson are among the companies that now say they'll not be licensing wi-fi patents under the IEEE's newly decided standards-essential licensing terms. Going forward they'll do the contracts as individually-negotiated deals, each one possibly unique. Assume Nokia, for competitive reasons, decides they'll no longer license a fundamental wi-fi patent(s) to Apple, period. They simply want Apple devices making use of it barred from the market. What should be their recourse? Is there a reason that competition authorities should consider how such an event should be dealt with as long as they're looking at the landscape as a whole?
Before you say that couldn't happen I think at some point it could become a distinct possibility from some patent holder.
This money means nothing for Apple. They've returned over $100B to the shareholders in the past few years.
At least the court upheld the patent violations. This is still a bad news for Samsung. There were lot of samsung defenders saying the jury was tainted/biased/don't know what they're doing/etc after the initial judgement. They can't use this excuse anymore.
@john12345 : I doubt Samsung is going to stop here. I'm a bit surprised that the appeal court upheld Apple's design patents that disgorged Samsung's "entire profit" without any apportionment, where the court applied rules appropriate for few-component furnitures v. multi-component communication devices. This is also potentially bad for Apple in its lawsuit against Ericsson, though they are dealing with two different types of patents.
Nope. Can you help out with a link to where Google said Apple never invented anything?
I said Google built the Apple patents into the Android OS. I did not find Google say it did. So not able to find what Google said explicitly is immaterial. Google had some collaborator put an android pissing on Apple. What did Google say about it?
You're right, the money is secondary. Look what happens when Samsung releases products that don't look like an iPhone. It hurt profits enough that they had to go back to copying the same general look of the iPhone 6, with exception of the back of the phone. Even got rid of the few features that used to distinguish their phones like the micro SD, removable battery and waterproofing.
@john12345 : I doubt Samsung is going to stop here. I'm a bit surprised that the appeal court upheld Apple's design patents that disgorged Samsung's "entire profit" without any apportionment, where the court applied rules appropriate for few-component furnitures v. multi-component communication devices. This is also potentially bad for Apple in its lawsuit against Ericsson, though they are dealing with two different types of patents.
Erissson lawsuit is completely different. Apple is willing to pay license fees. So there is no patent violation here.
The company also said that “we also learn from these issues, and we’re constantly improving how we detect, prevent and handle bad listings".
The end result is that they've removed the user-edit option altogether as of a few days ago and it will stay gone until they can redesign it so that it doesn't happen again.
Agreed but let us not forget all the discussions here on AI at the time that Apple probably felt going after Samsung was easier than the going after the real cause of the problem, Google. Especially as Google gave away the shit for free. It seems to have been repeated too often here by the pro Google troll that 'nothing was ever stolen by Google' and it seems to have worked. How easily history is rewritten.
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.
@Maestro64 : There are some restrictions on what can be trademarked, and the court notes, "trademark law allows for a perpetual monopoly and its use in the protection of “physical details and design of a product” must be limited to those that are “nonfunctional." That's a pretty important factor to consider in trade dress cases and that's been Samsung's main argument against the first ruling all along. The court likewise found that Apple failed to show there was "substantial evidence in the record to support a jury finding in favor of non-functionality." (p7-p14)
Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Just not sure why you read a blog by and for 'tech nerds' as you put it. You seem to have all the answers you need. Personally I care about facts because one, I've made my living with Apple products directly or indirectly since 1978 and two, I have a pretty large investment in the company. Hence I listen and learn from those that know. It's stood me in good stead over the years. Thanks for the laugh though.
Erissson lawsuit is completely different. Apple is willing to pay license fees. So there is no patent violation here.
@tzeshan : Apple is challenging Ericsson on multiple fronts (eg, validity, non-infringement), but their main contention is that Ericsson's royalty rate should be based on smallest salable unit v. entire device (ie, approportionment) in multicomponent products -- and their rate should be accordingly much lower.
@tzeshan : Apple is challenging Ericsson on multiple fronts (eg, validity, non-infringement), but their main contention is that Ericsson's royalty rate should be based on smallest salable unit v. entire device (ie, approportionment) in multicomponent products -- and their rate should be accordingly much lower.
I think the real issue is Ericsson wants to charge Apple at a much higher rate than it collects from other makers.