I must admit, even i am shocked at the amount of blatant copying Samesung has done of Apples products. Event the packaging is copied. Can't Samesung create anything themselves??
I believe the licensing fee Microsoft is collecting is quite trivial - less than $15 per unit.
$15 per unit is not trivial, it would make it one of the costlier components. With activations at one million per day that's 15 million dollars per day, five and a half billion dollars per year.
Why isn't Apple suing Google directly for infringing with Android?
I can see going after Samsung for the look and feel copying. That's pretty blatant. I suppose it "kills two birds with one stone" to also attack the underlying platform? If they win, it's a win against all Android phones and Android itself?
But still… it seems that a parallel suit vs Google/Android would be appropriate.
Possibly because they have nothing? You need something more than copycat accusations to file a suit. If you look at some of what has been posted, single exhibits and motions have been quite detailed. I'd like to know what you feel they would sue on beyond the overly emotional knee-jerk response of "Google copied Apple". If they think they have a case, it's likely that they're already preparing it. They may simply have nothing. Android itself doesn't have any trade dress issues. Do they violate specific patents? Will the patents hold up when tested in court? Will more Apple documents come out in the discovery process? Everyone suggesting legal strategies should really admit to themselves that they know absolutely nothing beyond what they've read on here.
Everyone suggesting legal strategies should really admit to themselves that they know absolutely nothing beyond what they've read on here.
Since you mentioned that, one of the best sources of what's going on in the courtroom blow-by-blow: the Mercury News. It's the one I've been following and very often cited as a source for stories posted by Ars, TheVerge, CNET, etc.
The photo of the Galaxy inside its case, with the lid open, is just so damning. Even if one buys Samsung's argument that a full touchscreen with a bezel is inevitable technological evolution, how do they argue that a similar case design is also inevitable? But it doesn't seem like Apple lawyers are arguing their case this way.
Why isn't Apple suing Google directly for infringing with Android?
I can see going after Samsung for the look and feel copying. That's pretty blatant. I suppose it "kills two birds with one stone" to also attack the underlying platform? If they win, it's a win against all Android phones and Android itself?
But still… it seems that a parallel suit vs Google/Android would be appropriate.
Although the software was written by Google they don't implement it, nor really profit from it. They can be sued but it's more difficult. If no phone maker used Android it would sit dormant on their servers. That might change now that they own Motorola Mobility.
Using that line of reasoning how could Oracle have expected to get a couple of billion from suing Google over Android? What would be the difference between Oracle or Apple suing?
Why isn't Apple suing Google directly for infringing with Android?
I can see going after Samsung for the look and feel copying. That's pretty blatant. I suppose it "kills two birds with one stone" to also attack the underlying platform? If they win, it's a win against all Android phones and Android itself?
But still… it seems that a parallel suit vs Google/Android would be appropriate.
Contrary to what people around here feel, the general public views Google in a very positive light. Look what happen in the Oracle trial. That one was supposed to be a slam dunk for Oracle. Although Apple has an overall positive image in the eyes of the general public, I think they may look at them as a bit snobbish or arrogant. Google on the other hand is viewed as the geeky Internet free service that everyone uses on a daily basis. I think Apple should be careful about going after Google although they do have every right to.
$15 per unit is not trivial, it would make it one of the costlier components. With activations at one million per day that's 15 million dollars per day, five and a half billion dollars per year.
Nice to see you teach some basic math to tooltalk.
You might have added, 5.5B in pure profit, which, at a P/E of 15x, is not chump change...... :-)
Since you mentioned that, one of the best sources of what's going on in the courtroom blow-by-blow: the Mercury News. It's the one I've been following and very often cited as a source for stories posted by Ars, TheVerge, CNET, etc. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21275393/
There may be a lot being left out of some of the stories you're depending on to present an accurate view.
EDIT: Apple's case should be mostly wrapped up by sometime Monday, then it's on to Samsung's arguments and presentations.
So, what do they tell you about an accurate view that you want to share with us and you haven't heard here?
Or is it just another one of your vacuous passive-aggressive charm offensives?
So, what do they tell you about an accurate view that you want to share with us and you haven't heard here?
Or is it just another one of your vacuous passive-aggressive charm offensives?
If you followed the link and didn't learn anything new, then you're obviously not one of those that could benefit from the live courtroom blog. Others less informed may find the Mercury News blog helpful.
Rather than continue to get upset and look for problems that don't exist, why not just do what you intended to do.
I believe the licensing fee Microsoft is collecting is quite trivial - less than $15 per unit.
The presentation doesn't seem to cover any design patents (look & feel) in question - so I'm guessing that the patents listed in the presentation are either trivial or invalidated. If I remember correctly from last year's lawsuit in Austrialia, Apple was willing to license non-core/junk patents only.
Well, consider that no courts in Netherland, Austrialia, Germany or UK agreed with Apple that Samsung infringed on Apple's design patents - the only exception was the Dusseldorf Court, known as East-Texas court of Germany or patent troll where Apple was able to ban Galaxy Tab under Germany's unique "unfair competition" law. There were a few Android related infringements (eg, photo gallery scroll patent), but Samsung later removed the infringing features.
The court case in Australia is ongoing and is being heard now, there was a preliminary injunction overturned on appeal which banned sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1.
Contrary to what people around here feel, the general public views Google in a very positive light. Look what happen in the Oracle trial. That one was supposed to be a slam dunk for Oracle. Although Apple has an overall positive image in the eyes of the general public, I think they may look at them as a bit snobbish or arrogant. Google on the other hand is viewed as the geeky Internet free service that everyone uses on a daily basis. I think Apple should be careful about going after Google although they do have every right to.
Good point. Furthermore, Samsung has gone above and beyond what Google has done.
Samsung has also profited more from their handsets than Google has from Android.
If you followed the link and didn't learn anything new, then you're obviously not one of those that could benefit from the live courtroom blog. Others less informed may find the Mercury News blog helpful.
Btw, the AI coverage is comprehensive and accurate, in my view. Member comments add further insight. No need to waste time reading some courtroom blog.
Fear not: Android will NOT vanish. It has already left Google’s ability to control it (yes, they’d like to) thanks to Amazon and many other flavors, but it will NOT vanish even if Google were to abandon it (which they won’t soon: Motorola). There’s only one other option (Windows RT, soon) for a smartphone OS unless OEMs want to develop their own from scratch... and good luck with that.
However, if Android is forced to respect Apple patents, Android (in all its flavors) will have to do what Microsoft did: innovate and do something different! Apple/Android/Microsoft will still all copy each other in the small, non-patented, ways, but the big patentable stuff will be different. That sounds awesome to me. (Even though the patent system is broken, that would be one good out come.)
Android will always face the problem that hardware-makers and the OS (and the carriers!) are not all on the same page together... UNLESS someone (Amazon?) does what Apple did and bring control under one roof—a new thing based on Android that isn’t even Android-compatible and doesn’t get the same updates. But it might at least GET updates, Apple-style, unlike most Android devices.
P.S. That Samsung packaging is NOT copying Apple. It’s just a rectangle! All telephone packages have always looked and worked exactly like that, and they always will. It’s pure coincidence that it looks/works like an iPhone box
Good point. Furthermore, Samsung has gone above and beyond what Google has done.
Samsung has also profited more from their handsets than Google has from Android.
Samsung is also a foreign company without the same cache in the US that Apple has. However this only addresses the court of public opinion without consideration for the actual evidence. In the case of Google when your product becomes a verb in popular usage, that does represent a substantial mindshare.
Fear not: Android will NOT vanish. It has already left Google’s ability to control it (yes, they’d like to) thanks to Amazon and many other flavors, but it will NOT vanish even if Google were to abandon it.
Funny how the way Android is pitched and thing Google has been trying to prevent from the start may be the only future for the platform.
Contrary to what people around here feel, the general public views Google in a very positive light. Look what happen in the Oracle trial. That one was supposed to be a slam dunk for Oracle. Although Apple has an overall positive image in the eyes of the general public, I think they may look at them as a bit snobbish or arrogant. Google on the other hand is viewed as the geeky Internet free service that everyone uses on a daily basis. I think Apple should be careful about going after Google although they do have every right to.
Also, if they win here, then it's established in a legal sense that Android as a product, infringes on iOS and Apple's patents. Google would be absolutely insane not to immediately settle out of court and either licence the IP or work around it in that case.
Despite their hyper-agressive "we own the world" attitude, Google has shown some deference in the past to Apple's patents and actively tried not to copy them at times so I think they would comply when faced with irrefutable facts.
Comments
Put a fork in it - you're done.
I must admit, even i am shocked at the amount of blatant copying Samesung has done of Apples products. Event the packaging is copied. Can't Samesung create anything themselves??
I believe the licensing fee Microsoft is collecting is quite trivial - less than $15 per unit.
$15 per unit is not trivial, it would make it one of the costlier components. With activations at one million per day that's 15 million dollars per day, five and a half billion dollars per year.Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
What this makes me wonder about the most is...
Why isn't Apple suing Google directly for infringing with Android?
I can see going after Samsung for the look and feel copying. That's pretty blatant. I suppose it "kills two birds with one stone" to also attack the underlying platform? If they win, it's a win against all Android phones and Android itself?
But still… it seems that a parallel suit vs Google/Android would be appropriate.
Possibly because they have nothing? You need something more than copycat accusations to file a suit. If you look at some of what has been posted, single exhibits and motions have been quite detailed. I'd like to know what you feel they would sue on beyond the overly emotional knee-jerk response of "Google copied Apple". If they think they have a case, it's likely that they're already preparing it. They may simply have nothing. Android itself doesn't have any trade dress issues. Do they violate specific patents? Will the patents hold up when tested in court? Will more Apple documents come out in the discovery process? Everyone suggesting legal strategies should really admit to themselves that they know absolutely nothing beyond what they've read on here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Everyone suggesting legal strategies should really admit to themselves that they know absolutely nothing beyond what they've read on here.
Since you mentioned that, one of the best sources of what's going on in the courtroom blow-by-blow: the Mercury News. It's the one I've been following and very often cited as a source for stories posted by Ars, TheVerge, CNET, etc.
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21275393/
There may be a lot being left out of some of the stories you're depending on to present an accurate view.
EDIT: Apple's case should be mostly wrapped up by sometime Monday, then it's on to Samsung's arguments and presentations.
The photo of the Galaxy inside its case, with the lid open, is just so damning. Even if one buys Samsung's argument that a full touchscreen with a bezel is inevitable technological evolution, how do they argue that a similar case design is also inevitable? But it doesn't seem like Apple lawyers are arguing their case this way.
Although the software was written by Google they don't implement it, nor really profit from it. They can be sued but it's more difficult. If no phone maker used Android it would sit dormant on their servers. That might change now that they own Motorola Mobility.
Using that line of reasoning how could Oracle have expected to get a couple of billion from suing Google over Android? What would be the difference between Oracle or Apple suing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
What this makes me wonder about the most is...
Why isn't Apple suing Google directly for infringing with Android?
I can see going after Samsung for the look and feel copying. That's pretty blatant. I suppose it "kills two birds with one stone" to also attack the underlying platform? If they win, it's a win against all Android phones and Android itself?
But still… it seems that a parallel suit vs Google/Android would be appropriate.
Contrary to what people around here feel, the general public views Google in a very positive light. Look what happen in the Oracle trial. That one was supposed to be a slam dunk for Oracle. Although Apple has an overall positive image in the eyes of the general public, I think they may look at them as a bit snobbish or arrogant. Google on the other hand is viewed as the geeky Internet free service that everyone uses on a daily basis. I think Apple should be careful about going after Google although they do have every right to.
Nice to see you teach some basic math to tooltalk.
You might have added, 5.5B in pure profit, which, at a P/E of 15x, is not chump change...... :-)
So, what do they tell you about an accurate view that you want to share with us and you haven't heard here?
Or is it just another one of your vacuous passive-aggressive charm offensives?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
So, what do they tell you about an accurate view that you want to share with us and you haven't heard here?
Or is it just another one of your vacuous passive-aggressive charm offensives?
If you followed the link and didn't learn anything new, then you're obviously not one of those that could benefit from the live courtroom blog. Others less informed may find the Mercury News blog helpful.
Rather than continue to get upset and look for problems that don't exist, why not just do what you intended to do.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151862/internal-sales-documents-show-samsung-has-lost-the-war-for-tablet-supremacy-in-the-us/80#post_2166244
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
I believe the licensing fee Microsoft is collecting is quite trivial - less than $15 per unit.
The presentation doesn't seem to cover any design patents (look & feel) in question - so I'm guessing that the patents listed in the presentation are either trivial or invalidated. If I remember correctly from last year's lawsuit in Austrialia, Apple was willing to license non-core/junk patents only.
Well, consider that no courts in Netherland, Austrialia, Germany or UK agreed with Apple that Samsung infringed on Apple's design patents - the only exception was the Dusseldorf Court, known as East-Texas court of Germany or patent troll where Apple was able to ban Galaxy Tab under Germany's unique "unfair competition" law. There were a few Android related infringements (eg, photo gallery scroll patent), but Samsung later removed the infringing features.
The court case in Australia is ongoing and is being heard now, there was a preliminary injunction overturned on appeal which banned sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Contrary to what people around here feel, the general public views Google in a very positive light. Look what happen in the Oracle trial. That one was supposed to be a slam dunk for Oracle. Although Apple has an overall positive image in the eyes of the general public, I think they may look at them as a bit snobbish or arrogant. Google on the other hand is viewed as the geeky Internet free service that everyone uses on a daily basis. I think Apple should be careful about going after Google although they do have every right to.
Good point. Furthermore, Samsung has gone above and beyond what Google has done.
Samsung has also profited more from their handsets than Google has from Android.
Yeah, I thought so. What else is new.
Btw, the AI coverage is comprehensive and accurate, in my view. Member comments add further insight. No need to waste time reading some courtroom blog.
Fear not: Android will NOT vanish. It has already left Google’s ability to control it (yes, they’d like to) thanks to Amazon and many other flavors, but it will NOT vanish even if Google were to abandon it (which they won’t soon: Motorola). There’s only one other option (Windows RT, soon) for a smartphone OS unless OEMs want to develop their own from scratch... and good luck with that.
However, if Android is forced to respect Apple patents, Android (in all its flavors) will have to do what Microsoft did: innovate and do something different! Apple/Android/Microsoft will still all copy each other in the small, non-patented, ways, but the big patentable stuff will be different. That sounds awesome to me. (Even though the patent system is broken, that would be one good out come.)
Android will always face the problem that hardware-makers and the OS (and the carriers!) are not all on the same page together... UNLESS someone (Amazon?) does what Apple did and bring control under one roof—a new thing based on Android that isn’t even Android-compatible and doesn’t get the same updates. But it might at least GET updates, Apple-style, unlike most Android devices.
P.S. That Samsung packaging is NOT copying Apple. It’s just a rectangle! All telephone packages have always looked and worked exactly like that, and they always will. It’s pure coincidence that it looks/works like an iPhone box
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
Good point. Furthermore, Samsung has gone above and beyond what Google has done.
Samsung has also profited more from their handsets than Google has from Android.
Samsung is also a foreign company without the same cache in the US that Apple has. However this only addresses the court of public opinion without consideration for the actual evidence. In the case of Google when your product becomes a verb in popular usage, that does represent a substantial mindshare.
Originally Posted by nagromme
Fear not: Android will NOT vanish. It has already left Google’s ability to control it (yes, they’d like to) thanks to Amazon and many other flavors, but it will NOT vanish even if Google were to abandon it.
Funny how the way Android is pitched and thing Google has been trying to prevent from the start may be the only future for the platform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Contrary to what people around here feel, the general public views Google in a very positive light. Look what happen in the Oracle trial. That one was supposed to be a slam dunk for Oracle. Although Apple has an overall positive image in the eyes of the general public, I think they may look at them as a bit snobbish or arrogant. Google on the other hand is viewed as the geeky Internet free service that everyone uses on a daily basis. I think Apple should be careful about going after Google although they do have every right to.
Also, if they win here, then it's established in a legal sense that Android as a product, infringes on iOS and Apple's patents. Google would be absolutely insane not to immediately settle out of court and either licence the IP or work around it in that case.
Despite their hyper-agressive "we own the world" attitude, Google has shown some deference in the past to Apple's patents and actively tried not to copy them at times so I think they would comply when faced with irrefutable facts.