Apple injunction against Galaxy S III would give Samsung 'big problems'

24567

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 137

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by holmstockd View Post


    lol only meant each phone in each hand makes the standard 3.5 inch screen they use small...


     


    Not sure if rumor is true but lets see how the 4inch they may produce will stand out.



     


    Glad to see that some people have a sense of humor around here. My hat's off to you, sir.

  • Reply 22 of 137
    nycmacfannycmacfan Posts: 129member


    Really.  We really want to live in a world in which predictive text or sliding to unlock any device is permanently patented to one company.  This stifles innovation.


     


    By contrast, the tablet injunction was also based on look and feel (a lawyer for Samsung could not tell an iPad from the Samsung device at a distance in court in front of a judge).




    The SIII is the first real challenger to the iPhone.  That is a good thing.  It forces Apple to innovate and improves the lives of everyone.  Creating monopolists is bad.




    This reminds me of Amazon patenting "one click" purchases.  How is that good for market?

  • Reply 23 of 137
    pedromartinspedromartins Posts: 1,333member
    shaun, uk wrote: »
    It's incredible that you can you patent something so vague as this. No wonder the system is in such a mess.

    is that the complete definition of the patent and how it works?
  • Reply 24 of 137
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,252member
    Why is this even being mentioned because it's not going to happen.  Apple won't be able to stop the Galaxy S III from being sold.  And even if they did temporarily, it would probably be easy enough for Samsung or Google to make whatever changes are necessary in a relatively short time.  I'm willing to bet that most users wouldn't even care if changes were made.

    If they could've, they would've.

    Moreover, this is not a game: the reputational consequences and negative stock market reaction could be huge.
  • Reply 25 of 137
    nycmacfannycmacfan Posts: 129member


    Patenting One Click for Amazon, slide to unlock and autocorrecting text are very egregious as well.




    This stifles innovation rather than supports it as it is hard to argue patenting such ideas leads to more innovation.




    Look at Blackberry - the company may live forever just on patent royalties.

  • Reply 26 of 137
    nycmacfannycmacfan Posts: 129member


    See the article.  


     


    More generally - the MS Word had spell correct of a less aggresive type before the iphone ever existed, the one click amazon patent it tried to get would probably have invalidated purchases in iTunes.   What a horrible system....

  • Reply 27 of 137
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,302member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post





    When I see posts like this I feel sad that I waste too much time on AppleInsider standing on my soap box yelling the obvious. Well, I'm sure I'm sharpening my skills (or something) here, for future battles. Don't give up brotha.


    FWIW that Samsung booth image was dealt with here (and elsewhere) months ago. The back "logo" wall is not Samsung's. It's part of the store decor for Euronics, similar to a Best Buy here. Samsung's area is just a display dedicated to their products. The logo wall is Euronics'. I remember the thread well ;)


    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/09/23/samsung_shop_features_apples_app_store_safari_icons_on_decorative_app_wall.html


     


    EDIT: Something I had forgotten: Look at the very first post in that thread. Then the dozens of posts with various claims and insults that followed telling me how wrong I was. image

  • Reply 28 of 137
    If Apple's goal is to truly go thermonuclear, this is a no-brainer. The Tab injunction was a laugher; the Nexus is also an aging, but more relevant device. If Apple could affect an injunction prior to the S III getting into the majority of consumers' hands, it would create a huge ding in Samsung's bottom line. I say "go for it."
  • Reply 29 of 137
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I don't see any design patent or trademark that looks like any Apple product so any injunction would seem to be in regards to other aspects of the device which, to me, would put in the same category as pretty much every other Android-based phone or at least all Samsung Android phones. Because of that I'm going to say that I predict no injunction and that the SIII will continue to sell.

    PS: Could the reason for the HW changes for the US market be to avoid such an injunction?

    markbyrn wrote: »
    Come on now, Samsung doesn't copy Apple!

    image: http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/170274/width/590/height/454

    edit: Gatorguy has cleared it up on post #28.
  • Reply 30 of 137
    amoradalaamoradala Posts: 146member


    I don't have a problem with the design of the samsung s3.


    In fact I think it is a beautiful, elegant almost feminine design that I'm sure appeals to most woman.


    It will of course appeal to certain men also.


     


    Never underestimate the strength of the 'pink pound'. It is a huge market and a very smart move by Samsung.

  • Reply 32 of 137

    Quote:


    Originally Posted by NYCMacFan View Post


    We really want to live in a world in which predictive text or sliding to unlock any device is permanently patented to one company.  This stifles innovation.



     


    I never understand the "this stifles innovation" argument.  No, it doesn't.  


     


    Let's say Apple has patented a method to achieve a desired result.  If Samsung wants to do something similar and get a similar result without infringing Apple's patent they would have to innovate and come up with their own solution.


     


    Patents don't stifle innovation, they encourage it.


     


    If you see it differently, please explain.  I truly never understand that line of argument.

  • Reply 34 of 137
    drakexdrakex Posts: 3member


    Samsung: We’re working on an Apple attack with Google.


    http://bit.ly/MDkUAj


     


    I'm so sick of Samsung!

  • Reply 35 of 137
    delreyjonesdelreyjones Posts: 333member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


     


    Instead, it was, of course, Apple. And Apple never liked to license anything, but they *loved* to patent - from day 1 of the company. It's the product of supreme foresight. 



     


    Are you sure?  I'm not trying to be argumentative, but my recollection is that Apple's lack of focus on patents was part of why Apple lost the desktop wars to M$.  I thought in the early days, Jobs wasn't interested in patents, he wanted to focus on other things.  I believe the original, revolutionary Mac UI had few accompanying patents and it was only protected by relatively weak copyrights.  So the unhappy results of that war is part of today's story, i.e. it's part of the reason Apple put a lot of effort into patents when they introduced the equally revolutionary smart phone interface in 2007.


     


    Can anyone confirm or correct this?

  • Reply 36 of 137
    jwdavjwdav Posts: 36member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NYCMacFan View Post


    Really.  We really want to live in a world in which predictive text or sliding to unlock any device is permanently patented to one company.  This stifles innovation.


     


    By contrast, the tablet injunction was also based on look and feel (a lawyer for Samsung could not tell an iPad from the Samsung device at a distance in court in front of a judge).




    The SIII is the first real challenger to the iPhone.  That is a good thing.  It forces Apple to innovate and improves the lives of everyone.  Creating monopolists is bad.




    This reminds me of Amazon patenting "one click" purchases.  How is that good for market?



    You seem to define innovation as company A inventing something and being copied by company B, C and D, thus forcing company A to again invent something to keep ahead of companies B, C and D.


     


    How about holding the copiers to a higher standard? Everyone copies features, and that is perfectly legal - what is not legal is copying the feature and the implementation without doing any work to originally implement the feature or improve it.


     


    Samsung has been sued for trade dress violations, copyright violations and patent violations - you could argue that you see patents as "evil", but what about the trade dress issue? Should a company be able to knock off a products look, packaging, marketing, and accessories? 

  • Reply 37 of 137
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member
    amoradala wrote: »
    Never underestimate the strength of the 'pink pound'. It is a huge market and a very smart move by Samsung.

    And good for both men of pink persuasion and women, it vibrates! Zing!
  • Reply 38 of 137
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member
    drakex wrote: »
    Samsung: We’re working on an Apple attack with Google.
    http://bit.ly/MDkUAj

    I'm so sick of Samsung!

    Funny how more and more Google really looks like the Dr Evil behind all these machinations with HTC, Motorola and Samsung their puppets ~ you know the guys that get killed in the Bond movies while Dr Evil escapes in his private rocket.
  • Reply 39 of 137
    markbyrnmarkbyrn Posts: 647member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    FWIW that Samsung booth image was dealt with here (and elsewhere) months ago. The back "logo" wall is not Samsung's. It's part of the store decor for Euronics

    The lame excuse of "it was store in the store display" didn't deal with it back then or now. There's an abundance of evidence that Samsung has blatantly copied Apple in an effort to deceive consumers thinking that they're getting an Apple like product - see:

    http://www.tuaw.com/2011/09/28/no-comment-proof-that-samsung-shamelessly-copies-apple/
  • Reply 40 of 137
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    FWIW that Samsung booth image was dealt with here (and elsewhere) months ago. The back "logo" wall is not Samsung's. It's part of the store decor for Euronics, similar to a Best Buy here. Samsung's area is just a display dedicated to their products. The logo wall is Euronics'. I remember the thread well
    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/09/23/samsung_shop_features_apples_app_store_safari_icons_on_decorative_app_wall.html

    EDIT: Something I had forgotten: Look at the very first post in that thread. Then the dozens of posts with various claims and insults that followed telling me how wrong I was. :lol:

    In defense of the people in that post most Americans aren't used to that type of store setup where half-walls or different flooring can be the demarcation points between this Samsung-controlled shop and the Euronics store surrounding it. You asked good questions but I think the concept was just too atypical for most to grasp then. I've seen this in parts of Europe and Japan where each "area" has it's own employees with their own registers, but in the US the closest would probably be Best Buy with their Mac area or Target with their Starbuck area but even those are run by Best Buy and Target employees, respectively, to the best of my knowledge.
Sign In or Register to comment.