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.
Not really. IP law is very clear on the following point: anyone (Google) that enables third parties (Samsung) to infringe on another's IP (Apple's) is just as liable as the infringer. Apple's decision to sue Samsung and not Google is strictly a strategic one.
why? your logic makes no sense. apple is the only tech company that has been innovating for years. everyone else is trying to catch up or copying. why not? we really don't need android.
I think what he meant to say was, "Innovate, don't litigate, Apple," in the sense that Apple shouldn't protect anything they do, but instead just make more new things if they're "really so good at innovating".
Not taking sides but this was an interesting comment. In other words, "I'd rather get my news via hearsay and potentially uninformed opinion rather than from the source."
How odd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
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.
The point is Samsung's products copy Apple's in MANY ways. The Hardware. The software. The cables. The packaging. Their advertising. They didn't simply "borrow" one or two things, nor is this about rectangles... It goes way beyond that. Samsung's product copied Apple very closely and in many ways. Inspiration is fine. Out and copying? Not so much.
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...... :-)
Wishful thinking, Apple Fanboi. It's widely guestimated that Samsung is paying $1-$5 range. Seriously, it would be nonsensical for Samsung to make low-end androids models that cost $150 when Microsoft tax alone accounts for 10%. Only in anantksundaram's wet dream.
Not taking sides but this was an interesting comment. In other words, "I'd rather get my news via hearsay and potentially uninformed opinion rather than from the source."
How odd.
A "courtroom blog" is far from being "the source." You are making yourself look foolish by implying such.
Using the weasely words "hearsay" and "potentially uninformed opinion," doesn't help your case either.
All opinion is potentially uninformed, although opinion from a source like Apple Inisder that has been investigating and reporting on such things since long before smartphones were even a thing, would be "informed" by definition. Additionally, "hearsay" is just a more negative way of saying "rumour," and while AppleInsider is indeed a rumour site, in this case, they are just reporting straight facts as they are released. So that argument is kind of empty also.
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.
Yet you haven't said even suggested a basis for Apple to sue them. Perhaps you should stick to playing with legos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"Because you have a patent on rectangles, so I had to be square."
Yes, I know squares are rectangles.
If we're talking about the design patent, design patents are meant to be pretty specific. You can find the ones Apple is claiming in some of these links. It's not really as clear as you want to believe.
$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.
I said less than $15.. Microsoft's initial asking price was $15, but nobody pays the asking-price - HTC was known to have struck a deal with Microsoft for $5. Samsung makes low / high end smartphones and is known to be paying anywhere between $1 - $5 per unit (or ~1% of total cost).
You seriously don't think Microsoft is collecting $5B in Android patents licensing fees alone, do you?
The point is Samsung's products copy Apple's in MANY ways. The Hardware. The software. The cables. The packaging. Their advertising. They didn't simply "borrow" one or two things, nor is this about rectangles... It goes way beyond that. Samsung's product copied Apple very closely and in many ways. Inspiration is fine. Out and copying? Not so much.
I don't think there is any denial that Samsung tries to emulate Apple's success (and packaging designs), but consider the following
"... When Apple was developing its campaign to promote the first iPhone, it considered – and rejected – advertisements that touted alleged Apple ?firsts with the iPhone. As one Apple employee explained to an overly exuberant Apple marketer, I don‘t know how many things we can come up with that you can legitimately claim we did first. Certainly we have the first successful versions of many features, but that‘s different than launching something to market first. In this vein, the employee methodically explained that Palm, Nokia and others had first invented the iPhone‘s most prominent features."
I don't think there is any denial that Samsung tries to emulate Apple's success (and packaging designs), but consider the following
"... When Apple was developing its campaign to promote the first iPhone, it considered – and rejected – advertisements that touted alleged Apple ?firsts with the iPhone. As one Apple employee explained to an overly exuberant Apple marketer, I don‘t know how many things we can come up with that you can legitimately claim we did first. Certainly we have the first successful versions of many features, but that‘s different than launching something to market first. In this vein, the employee methodically explained that Palm, Nokia and others had first invented the iPhone‘s most prominent features."
Thank you for the fine example of hearsay. Perhaps one might provide a link?
Why so defensive and argumentative? How is the word "hearsay" and the phrase "potentially uninformed opinion" weasely?
There are informed and uninformed opinions. I would classify non-lawyers talking legalities and legal strategy to be people who fall into the latter category. Considering so many people here seem to get their "news" from few sources, "potentially uninformed" was the appropriate phrasing.
Please look up the word hearsay. Hearsay is not the equivalent to rumour. It is information not from the original source. Appleinsider is far from unbiased and if you disagree, you've been here too long.
Still trying to understand why you are being so defensive. I asked a valid question. It wasn't an attack. I would ask the same question of anyone who is happy to obtain their information from a single source.
Someone is being overly sensitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
A "courtroom blog" is far from being "the source." You are making yourself look foolish by implying such.
Using the weasely words "hearsay" and "potentially uninformed opinion," doesn't help your case either.
All opinion is potentially uninformed, although opinion from a source like Apple Inisder that has been investigating and reporting on such things since long before smartphones were even a thing, would be "informed" by definition. Additionally, "hearsay" is just a more negative way of saying "rumour," and while AppleInsider is indeed a rumour site, in this case, they are just reporting straight facts as they are released. So that argument is kind of empty also.
I don't think there is any denial that Samsung tries to emulate Apple's success (and packaging designs), but consider the following
"... When Apple was developing its campaign to promote the first iPhone, it considered – and rejected – advertisements that touted alleged Apple ?firsts with the iPhone. As one Apple employee explained to an overly exuberant Apple marketer, I don‘t know how many things we can come up with that you can legitimately claim we did first. Certainly we have the first successful versions of many features, but that‘s different than launching something to market first. In this vein, the employee methodically explained that Palm, Nokia and others had first invented the iPhone‘s most prominent features."
I understand full well that Apple are often not first. Never claimed they were. That said, I don't recall another mobile computing device / phone that predates the iPhone that is anywhere near like the iPhone in the way that Sammy's stuff is like Apple's. There may have been a couple of full-screen devices, but none looked like or worked like the iPhone. The hardware was different. Their interfaces were completely different. Their feature sets and capabilities were completely different. There simply was never a device that could be confused with the iPhone.None. That is of course until the iPhone copying started. Apple may not have been first in all areas, but they did it right. I'd say that Apple's sales seem to support that. Samsung's iClones have been a hit for them. If Apple ripped off someone in the ways that Samsung have ripped off Apple, I'd expect them to get their ass handed to them.
I don't think there is any denial that Samsung tries to emulate Apple's success (and packaging designs), but consider the following
"... When Apple was developing its campaign to promote the first iPhone, it considered – and rejected – advertisements that touted alleged Apple ?firsts with the iPhone. As one Apple employee explained to an overly exuberant Apple marketer, I don‘t know how many things we can come up with that you can legitimately claim we did first. Certainly we have the first successful versions of many features, but that‘s different than launching something to market first. In this vein, the employee methodically explained that Palm, Nokia and others had first invented the iPhone‘s most prominent features."
The most prominent features were "Slide to unlock" followed by multitouch, so I guess you are wrong.
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.
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.
Thanks for the link, although it still doesn't support the position of the other guy who suggested Apple should just sue Google over whatever is possible. I actually wish it provided even more detail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
After reading about this court case and watching nearly two seasons of Suits I'm pretty sure I could pass the LSAT¡
I know you're being silly, but television attempts to make some of this stuff far more interesting than it really is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flabber
Look at T-Mobile... they were able to patent the colour magenta which prohibits any other provider in the same business to use that specific colour. So yes, I believe that it cán be patented. But I don't think that a colour should be patentable though. And neither should it be possible to patent "rounded corners".
But I dó believe in intellectual property and copyright. Now, if you draw a circle and someone else does the same thing, big boohoo but that happens. But if you deliberately design your phone to have a véry large quantity of similar design elements as the competition… well, that's a whole different ball game. In that case you're deliberately entering someone's area of intellectual property, which is a dangerous area to be in if someone finds out. Drawing a set of shapes in nearly the exact way as the competition (Apple in this case), and then using similar materials and colours on top of that is proof by itself that Samsung is trying to steal some of the thunder that Apple created by doing the same thing.
I'm not sure what that patent was like, how it's distinguished, etc. There would have to be more to it. How is this magenta identified? Are they using a pantone reference? LAB reference value? How is it distinguished? How far does it reach? Is a color variation of >3 Delta E of the target color or a different pantone shade enough to circumvent this? The thing is design patents should be extremely specific, or they run the justifiable risk of being invalid. In this case I'm not sure if the t-mobile patent was ever challenged, and I'm taking your word that it exists. The argument "stealing our thunder" isn't something that is likely to hold up. As you've seen they had to translate that into something that could be filed as a lawsuit. I'm still convinced you don't understand your own words on the t-mobile issue.
the employee methodically explained that Palm, Nokia and others had first invented the iPhone‘s most prominent features."
Your comment is totally useless without a list of the "features" they were referring to.
Were they talking about having a web browser, e-mail, MMS or contacts list? Were they talking about icons to represent Apps? If so then of course Apple wasn't first. If they were talking about multitouch gestures, overscroll bounce or other UI features, then Apple was the first.
Those are also the features that you can't really advertise. What would be the point in explaining overscroll to a regular customer? Or any of the other small features that combine to make the overall experience better on an iPhone?
Nice to see Apple assert some of their QuickTime VR patents.
Never understood why they hadn't sooner.
People act like the street view stuff Google is doing is something new when in fact Apple was pioneering the technology more than a decade before Google released StreetView.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
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.
Not really. IP law is very clear on the following point: anyone (Google) that enables third parties (Samsung) to infringe on another's IP (Apple's) is just as liable as the infringer. Apple's decision to sue Samsung and not Google is strictly a strategic one.
Originally Posted by mac_dog
why? your logic makes no sense. apple is the only tech company that has been innovating for years. everyone else is trying to catch up or copying. why not? we really don't need android.
I think what he meant to say was, "Innovate, don't litigate, Apple," in the sense that Apple shouldn't protect anything they do, but instead just make more new things if they're "really so good at innovating".
Better late than never...
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8655396/09%20Thunder%20and%20Blazes.m4a
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication
I was thinking Susan Estrich with a black wig.Yeah... They had to delay Estrich's license to participate until they installed a pole in the courtroom
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8655396/Mystery%201.aif
Not taking sides but this was an interesting comment. In other words, "I'd rather get my news via hearsay and potentially uninformed opinion rather than from the source."
How odd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Apart from not displaying an image of the phone on the box.... and having completely different dimensions.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }The point is Samsung's products copy Apple's in MANY ways. The Hardware. The software. The cables. The packaging. Their advertising. They didn't simply "borrow" one or two things, nor is this about rectangles... It goes way beyond that. Samsung's product copied Apple very closely and in many ways. Inspiration is fine. Out and copying? Not so much.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
I thought the cosplay was a fitting analogy here, since Samsung is doing such a good job being someone who they aren't
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
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...... :-)
Wishful thinking, Apple Fanboi. It's widely guestimated that Samsung is paying $1-$5 range. Seriously, it would be nonsensical for Samsung to make low-end androids models that cost $150 when Microsoft tax alone accounts for 10%. Only in anantksundaram's wet dream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead
Not taking sides but this was an interesting comment. In other words, "I'd rather get my news via hearsay and potentially uninformed opinion rather than from the source."
How odd.
A "courtroom blog" is far from being "the source." You are making yourself look foolish by implying such.
Using the weasely words "hearsay" and "potentially uninformed opinion," doesn't help your case either.
All opinion is potentially uninformed, although opinion from a source like Apple Inisder that has been investigating and reporting on such things since long before smartphones were even a thing, would be "informed" by definition. Additionally, "hearsay" is just a more negative way of saying "rumour," and while AppleInsider is indeed a rumour site, in this case, they are just reporting straight facts as they are released. So that argument is kind of empty also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
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.
Yet you haven't said even suggested a basis for Apple to sue them. Perhaps you should stick to playing with legos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"Because you have a patent on rectangles, so I had to be square."
Yes, I know squares are rectangles.
If we're talking about the design patent, design patents are meant to be pretty specific. You can find the ones Apple is claiming in some of these links. It's not really as clear as you want to believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beauty of Bath
$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.I said less than $15.. Microsoft's initial asking price was $15, but nobody pays the asking-price - HTC was known to have struck a deal with Microsoft for $5. Samsung makes low / high end smartphones and is known to be paying anywhere between $1 - $5 per unit (or ~1% of total cost).
You seriously don't think Microsoft is collecting $5B in Android patents licensing fees alone, do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
The point is Samsung's products copy Apple's in MANY ways. The Hardware. The software. The cables. The packaging. Their advertising. They didn't simply "borrow" one or two things, nor is this about rectangles... It goes way beyond that. Samsung's product copied Apple very closely and in many ways. Inspiration is fine. Out and copying? Not so much.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
I don't think there is any denial that Samsung tries to emulate Apple's success (and packaging designs), but consider the following
"... When Apple was developing its campaign to promote the first iPhone, it considered – and rejected – advertisements that touted alleged Apple ?firsts with the iPhone. As one Apple employee explained to an overly exuberant Apple marketer, I don‘t know how many things we can come up with that you can legitimately claim we did first. Certainly we have the first successful versions of many features, but that‘s different than launching something to market first. In this vein, the employee methodically explained that Palm, Nokia and others had first invented the iPhone‘s most prominent features."
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
I don't think there is any denial that Samsung tries to emulate Apple's success (and packaging designs), but consider the following
"... When Apple was developing its campaign to promote the first iPhone, it considered – and rejected – advertisements that touted alleged Apple ?firsts with the iPhone. As one Apple employee explained to an overly exuberant Apple marketer, I don‘t know how many things we can come up with that you can legitimately claim we did first. Certainly we have the first successful versions of many features, but that‘s different than launching something to market first. In this vein, the employee methodically explained that Palm, Nokia and others had first invented the iPhone‘s most prominent features."
Thank you for the fine example of hearsay. Perhaps one might provide a link?
Cheers
Why so defensive and argumentative? How is the word "hearsay" and the phrase "potentially uninformed opinion" weasely?
There are informed and uninformed opinions. I would classify non-lawyers talking legalities and legal strategy to be people who fall into the latter category. Considering so many people here seem to get their "news" from few sources, "potentially uninformed" was the appropriate phrasing.
Please look up the word hearsay. Hearsay is not the equivalent to rumour. It is information not from the original source. Appleinsider is far from unbiased and if you disagree, you've been here too long.
Still trying to understand why you are being so defensive. I asked a valid question. It wasn't an attack. I would ask the same question of anyone who is happy to obtain their information from a single source.
Someone is being overly sensitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
A "courtroom blog" is far from being "the source." You are making yourself look foolish by implying such.
Using the weasely words "hearsay" and "potentially uninformed opinion," doesn't help your case either.
All opinion is potentially uninformed, although opinion from a source like Apple Inisder that has been investigating and reporting on such things since long before smartphones were even a thing, would be "informed" by definition. Additionally, "hearsay" is just a more negative way of saying "rumour," and while AppleInsider is indeed a rumour site, in this case, they are just reporting straight facts as they are released. So that argument is kind of empty also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
I don't think there is any denial that Samsung tries to emulate Apple's success (and packaging designs), but consider the following
"... When Apple was developing its campaign to promote the first iPhone, it considered – and rejected – advertisements that touted alleged Apple ?firsts with the iPhone. As one Apple employee explained to an overly exuberant Apple marketer, I don‘t know how many things we can come up with that you can legitimately claim we did first. Certainly we have the first successful versions of many features, but that‘s different than launching something to market first. In this vein, the employee methodically explained that Palm, Nokia and others had first invented the iPhone‘s most prominent features."
I understand full well that Apple are often not first. Never claimed they were. That said, I don't recall another mobile computing device / phone that predates the iPhone that is anywhere near like the iPhone in the way that Sammy's stuff is like Apple's. There may have been a couple of full-screen devices, but none looked like or worked like the iPhone. The hardware was different. Their interfaces were completely different. Their feature sets and capabilities were completely different. There simply was never a device that could be confused with the iPhone.None. That is of course until the iPhone copying started. Apple may not have been first in all areas, but they did it right. I'd say that Apple's sales seem to support that. Samsung's iClones have been a hit for them. If Apple ripped off someone in the ways that Samsung have ripped off Apple, I'd expect them to get their ass handed to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
I don't think there is any denial that Samsung tries to emulate Apple's success (and packaging designs), but consider the following
"... When Apple was developing its campaign to promote the first iPhone, it considered – and rejected – advertisements that touted alleged Apple ?firsts with the iPhone. As one Apple employee explained to an overly exuberant Apple marketer, I don‘t know how many things we can come up with that you can legitimately claim we did first. Certainly we have the first successful versions of many features, but that‘s different than launching something to market first. In this vein, the employee methodically explained that Palm, Nokia and others had first invented the iPhone‘s most prominent features."
The most prominent features were "Slide to unlock" followed by multitouch, so I guess you are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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.
Thanks for the link, although it still doesn't support the position of the other guy who suggested Apple should just sue Google over whatever is possible. I actually wish it provided even more detail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
After reading about this court case and watching nearly two seasons of Suits I'm pretty sure I could pass the LSAT¡
I know you're being silly, but television attempts to make some of this stuff far more interesting than it really is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flabber
Look at T-Mobile... they were able to patent the colour magenta which prohibits any other provider in the same business to use that specific colour. So yes, I believe that it cán be patented. But I don't think that a colour should be patentable though. And neither should it be possible to patent "rounded corners".
But I dó believe in intellectual property and copyright. Now, if you draw a circle and someone else does the same thing, big boohoo but that happens. But if you deliberately design your phone to have a véry large quantity of similar design elements as the competition… well, that's a whole different ball game. In that case you're deliberately entering someone's area of intellectual property, which is a dangerous area to be in if someone finds out. Drawing a set of shapes in nearly the exact way as the competition (Apple in this case), and then using similar materials and colours on top of that is proof by itself that Samsung is trying to steal some of the thunder that Apple created by doing the same thing.
I'm not sure what that patent was like, how it's distinguished, etc. There would have to be more to it. How is this magenta identified? Are they using a pantone reference? LAB reference value? How is it distinguished? How far does it reach? Is a color variation of >3 Delta E of the target color or a different pantone shade enough to circumvent this? The thing is design patents should be extremely specific, or they run the justifiable risk of being invalid. In this case I'm not sure if the t-mobile patent was ever challenged, and I'm taking your word that it exists. The argument "stealing our thunder" isn't something that is likely to hold up. As you've seen they had to translate that into something that could be filed as a lawsuit. I'm still convinced you don't understand your own words on the t-mobile issue.
I sure hope so. If TV had the same entertainment value as real life I can't imagine it ever talking off as a medium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
the employee methodically explained that Palm, Nokia and others had first invented the iPhone‘s most prominent features."
Your comment is totally useless without a list of the "features" they were referring to.
Were they talking about having a web browser, e-mail, MMS or contacts list? Were they talking about icons to represent Apps? If so then of course Apple wasn't first. If they were talking about multitouch gestures, overscroll bounce or other UI features, then Apple was the first.
Those are also the features that you can't really advertise. What would be the point in explaining overscroll to a regular customer? Or any of the other small features that combine to make the overall experience better on an iPhone?
Nice to see Apple assert some of their QuickTime VR patents.
Never understood why they hadn't sooner.
People act like the street view stuff Google is doing is something new when in fact Apple was pioneering the technology more than a decade before Google released StreetView.