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/
I doubt he'd deny that Samsung brazenly copies Apple but on the topic of the App Store images being posted just outside the Samsung store area all evidence points to Samsung not having anything to do with that.
Can we get back on the original topic? What about the SIII is Samsung copying? What could Apple feasibly get an injunction for?
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.
But now, Google has handcuffed itself to Motorola Mobility. Is there room for two in that rocket?
But now, Google has handcuffed itself to Motorola Mobility. Is there room for two in that rocket?
Nope, only Google gets to blast off. Motorola, HTC, Samsung, all meet gruesome ends before Bond gets to the rocket, only to see Google give him the finger as they disappear into the dark night sky. Motorola might be "Jaws" or one of the super-bad henchmen, which still bites the dust in the end despite gallant blind loyalty.
Now the real question is who's the evil white furry cat that gets to be in Google's lap from start to finish, maybe even to reappear in the sequel. Any guesses?
Why? There are billions of dollars at stake. This is what the courts are there for.
They are not there to be used as tools for marketing gain or leverage and that is exactly what is happening on both sides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
"Copy each other?" BS. Show us the evidence. Just because you can claim something nonsensical in an internet forum doesn't make it true or right.
I'm not going to get into an online argument over something as petty as this and I don't need to prove anything. The information is out there for all to see, do your own research (and preferably on sites that are truly impartial). I'm not going to defend either side because they're both at fault but if you think that one side developed a technology/feature/method that is truly unique and retains the obligation to be defended in this way then you're being naive.
I never understand the "this stifles innovation" argument. No, it doesn't.
They do, actually. The time people spend footing around inane overly broad software and procedure patents is time they could have spent doing something innovative. Sure, they might come up with an original solution to that problem, but that's still time they could have spent doing something else. Also, the patent quagmire can prevent smaller companies from competing as the larger companies will attempt to crush them with ridiculous patents (and frequently succeed in doing so), stifling innovating in a much more meaningful way. And then there's the money and resources that go into litigation instead of development or innovation. Companies which try to secure their position through litigation instead of competing as their market evolves. The list goes on.
The system is broken. I'm not railing against Apple, here. They're just playing ball by the rules (and much more cleanly than some of their competitors as as least Apple is depending on patents they came up with unlike those who fight with purchased patent portfolios). But there's no reason to pretend that it doesn't stifle innovation.
If the Nexus Galaxy injunction will require Apple to post a bond of almost $100 million, how big a bond will it require for an injunction of Galaxy S III?
Google/Samsung attack so far has been based on either getting Apple to pay excessively high royalties for licensing their standards-essential patents, or getting injunctive relief if Apple does not agree to their blackmail. U.S. courts will never grant an injunction for the use of standards essential patents. Germany may. Remains to be seen.
Yeah, that's the Fandroid Mantra when confronted with the unpleasant reality that Samsung has ripped off Apple's IP but I have a more accurate mantra.
When you don't innovate, litigation will force you to innovate
That applies to Apple as well when they copy others but in the end, we the consumers get the innovation.
You misunderstand me. I would be just as disgusted if Samsung had "won" an injunction against the iPhone. My disgust is not necessarily directed at Apple, but at the archaic, broken patent and IP system enforced by incompetent government.
Reduce the size, scope, and power of government in this area and these companies must succeed or fail on their own merits. Now there's a thought.
You misunderstand me. I would be just as disgusted if Samsung had "won" an injunction against the iPhone. My disgust is not necessarily directed at Apple, but at the archaic, broken patent and IP system enforced by incompetent government.
As broken as the patent system is, I'm not sad about any victory scored against Samsung. They're big on copying aspects of their competitors to break into a market (we're all familiar with numerous mobile computing examples, I'll imagine) and this extends far beyond their history in the mobile computing world. You can find examples related to appliances and various other markets Samsung has entered. And so far it has worked out nicely for them, and might even work out for them here, too.
It's incredible that you can you patent something so vague as this. No wonder the system is in such a mess.
The patent is really not as vague as the title makes it sound, but the title isn't long enough to convey any details. Follow the link and read the abstract. I think it is sufficiently detailed.
I doubt he'd deny that Samsung brazenly copies Apple
Correct, I don't disagree. I think most of that copying will be past-tense now. Apple's made their point, tho that doesn't mean they intend to let up yet.
The patent is really not as vague as the title makes it sound, but the title isn't long enough to convey any details. Follow the link and read the abstract. I think it is sufficiently detailed.
"A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data. The system provides an analyzer server, an application program interface, a user interface and an action processor. The analyzer server receives from an application running concurrently data having recognizable structures, uses a pattern analysis unit, such as a parser or fast string search function, to detect structures in the data, and links relevant actions to the detected structures. The application program interface communicates with the application running concurrently, and transmits relevant information to the user interface. Thus, the user interface can present and enable selection of the detected structures, and upon selection of a detected structure, present the linked candidate actions. Upon selection of an action, the action processor performs the action on the detected structure."
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.
Nor can I. To be honest, it's the "cool" thing to say at the moment. I think people need to be "innovative", and find a new tag line.
Lawsuits: Because innovating and competing is just too hard.
Trolling on a website about products you hate made by a company you hate: Because taking the time to have an actual argument or being intelligent enough to not visit these sites is just too hard.
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.
Apple's goal is likely to reduce the commoditization of their designs and features so they can retain their premium brand and experience. No expectation that they can prevent Samsung from selling phones.
Comments
I doubt he'd deny that Samsung brazenly copies Apple but on the topic of the App Store images being posted just outside the Samsung store area all evidence points to Samsung not having anything to do with that.
Can we get back on the original topic? What about the SIII is Samsung copying? What could Apple feasibly get an injunction for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrakeX
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.
But now, Google has handcuffed itself to Motorola Mobility. Is there room for two in that rocket?
Yeah, that's the Fandroid Mantra when confronted with the unpleasant reality that Samsung has ripped off Apple's IP but I have a more accurate mantra.
When you don't innovate, litigation will force you to innovate
That applies to Apple as well when they copy others but in the end, we the consumers get the innovation.
Nope, only Google gets to blast off. Motorola, HTC, Samsung, all meet gruesome ends before Bond gets to the rocket, only to see Google give him the finger as they disappear into the dark night sky. Motorola might be "Jaws" or one of the super-bad henchmen, which still bites the dust in the end despite gallant blind loyalty.
Now the real question is who's the evil white furry cat that gets to be in Google's lap from start to finish, maybe even to reappear in the sequel. Any guesses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Why? There are billions of dollars at stake. This is what the courts are there for.
They are not there to be used as tools for marketing gain or leverage and that is exactly what is happening on both sides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
"Copy each other?" BS. Show us the evidence. Just because you can claim something nonsensical in an internet forum doesn't make it true or right.
I'm not going to get into an online argument over something as petty as this and I don't need to prove anything. The information is out there for all to see, do your own research (and preferably on sites that are truly impartial). I'm not going to defend either side because they're both at fault but if you think that one side developed a technology/feature/method that is truly unique and retains the obligation to be defended in this way then you're being naive.
They do, actually. The time people spend footing around inane overly broad software and procedure patents is time they could have spent doing something innovative. Sure, they might come up with an original solution to that problem, but that's still time they could have spent doing something else. Also, the patent quagmire can prevent smaller companies from competing as the larger companies will attempt to crush them with ridiculous patents (and frequently succeed in doing so), stifling innovating in a much more meaningful way. And then there's the money and resources that go into litigation instead of development or innovation. Companies which try to secure their position through litigation instead of competing as their market evolves. The list goes on.
The system is broken. I'm not railing against Apple, here. They're just playing ball by the rules (and much more cleanly than some of their competitors as as least Apple is depending on patents they came up with unlike those who fight with purchased patent portfolios). But there's no reason to pretend that it doesn't stifle innovation.
If the Nexus Galaxy injunction will require Apple to post a bond of almost $100 million, how big a bond will it require for an injunction of Galaxy S III?
A $1 billion?
This is fast becoming a high stakes game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Oh well. It coulda been Sammy doing that keynote in June 2007...
I believe you mean January of 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrakeX
Samsung: We’re working on an Apple attack with Google.
http://bit.ly/MDkUAj
I'm so sick of Samsung!
Google/Samsung attack so far has been based on either getting Apple to pay excessively high royalties for licensing their standards-essential patents, or getting injunctive relief if Apple does not agree to their blackmail. U.S. courts will never grant an injunction for the use of standards essential patents. Germany may. Remains to be seen.
I'd love for this phone to be banned, the ensuing butthurt would be hilarious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
Yeah, that's the Fandroid Mantra when confronted with the unpleasant reality that Samsung has ripped off Apple's IP but I have a more accurate mantra.
When you don't innovate, litigation will force you to innovate
That applies to Apple as well when they copy others but in the end, we the consumers get the innovation.
You misunderstand me. I would be just as disgusted if Samsung had "won" an injunction against the iPhone. My disgust is not necessarily directed at Apple, but at the archaic, broken patent and IP system enforced by incompetent government.
Reduce the size, scope, and power of government in this area and these companies must succeed or fail on their own merits. Now there's a thought.
As broken as the patent system is, I'm not sad about any victory scored against Samsung. They're big on copying aspects of their competitors to break into a market (we're all familiar with numerous mobile computing examples, I'll imagine) and this extends far beyond their history in the mobile computing world. You can find examples related to appliances and various other markets Samsung has entered. And so far it has worked out nicely for them, and might even work out for them here, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
It's incredible that you can you patent something so vague as this. No wonder the system is in such a mess.
The patent is really not as vague as the title makes it sound, but the title isn't long enough to convey any details. Follow the link and read the abstract. I think it is sufficiently detailed.
Thompson
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I doubt he'd deny that Samsung brazenly copies Apple
Correct, I don't disagree. I think most of that copying will be past-tense now. Apple's made their point, tho that doesn't mean they intend to let up yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr
The patent is really not as vague as the title makes it sound, but the title isn't long enough to convey any details. Follow the link and read the abstract. I think it is sufficiently detailed.
"A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data. The system provides an analyzer server, an application program interface, a user interface and an action processor. The analyzer server receives from an application running concurrently data having recognizable structures, uses a pattern analysis unit, such as a parser or fast string search function, to detect structures in the data, and links relevant actions to the detected structures. The application program interface communicates with the application running concurrently, and transmits relevant information to the user interface. Thus, the user interface can present and enable selection of the detected structures, and upon selection of a detected structure, present the linked candidate actions. Upon selection of an action, the action processor performs the action on the detected structure."
Yes that's much clearer. Not lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by IHateScreenNames
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.
Nor can I. To be honest, it's the "cool" thing to say at the moment. I think people need to be "innovative", and find a new tag line.
Google was Samsung's saving grace. Anyone remember Samsungs first iPhone knock off attempt --the Samsung Instinct? *shudders*
Lawsuits: Because innovating and competing is just too hard.
Trolling on a website about products you hate made by a company you hate: Because taking the time to have an actual argument or being intelligent enough to not visit these sites is just too hard.
Apple's goal is likely to reduce the commoditization of their designs and features so they can retain their premium brand and experience. No expectation that they can prevent Samsung from selling phones.