What I don't understand is that 'rubber banding' is clearly a software patent, and as far as I know (or thought I knew) software patents are not recognised in Europe (indeed virtually anywhere outside the USA), so how can this be ruled on by a German court? Clearly it has been so I guess the software patent situation isn't as black and white as that...
Really this is the heart of the problem - software patents are the major issue, should they be recognised in the first place? It's one thing to penalise Samsung et al for copying the patented hardware features of Apple's stuff (which inclues the physical design and appearance) but what if the feature they copy isn't hardware at all but a skeumorphic software effect like rubber banding? Is that patentable? Should it be?
I hope you don't hold your breath waiting for that ban to happen. Remember Apple owns some LTE patents (via Nortel) as well and uses chip sets from Qualcomm that are already licensed.
Apple also have other cross licensing agreements with Nokia and others.
If Samsung feels they don't have to contribute to standards or play by the rules, their methods should be stripped out, worked around and any standards non-compliant handsets should be banned by the FCC.
I wonder how the shoe will feel when the iPhone 5 is banned from import over LTE patents.
I guarantee you that will never happen. The LTE patents are standards-essential. And by the way, Apple has also contributed patents to the LTE standard, though not as many as Samsung has. What will happen (if Samsung goes ahead and tries to ban the iPhone over LTE) is that Europe and the U.S. will look further into standards-essential patent abuse by Samsung, which could lead to sanctions. The patents that Apple is suing over are not standards-essential, which gives Apple the right to ask for import bans.
Appealable outcomes which are still undergoing that process.
News headline "Samsung found guilty of copying Apple".
Decree imposed by judge "(advertisement) Samsung didn't copy Apple".
The fact is obviously Samsung copied Apple and have been found guilty in several jurisdictions, why should Apple be forced to lie in an advertisement?
Isn't the Judge inciting a crime, under false and misleading advertising laws?
Will they need disclaimers?
Samsung only copied Apple in the US and Germany but not in the UK with the same products made in the same factories.
How is this possible?
Colin Birss is obviously a nutcase.
That ruling was kind of funny in a bizarre way - the judge's reasoning was that nobody would mistake a Samsung phone for an iPhone because the Samsung phone isn't cool, like the iPhone is. Therefore, Samsung didn't copy.
I'm a bit on the fence about patents. There's a fine line between drawing from the creative pool and outright copying. We need standards, especially on the hardware side, but when it comes to user experience and how features are implemented, I think protection is deserved. For the most part, Apple is trying to protect its creative ideas whereas Samsung is going after hardware. LTE patents versus rubber-banding are two completely different issues. LTE benefits us all. Everyone, whatever platform he or she chooses, benefits from a standard.
But rubber-banding is something creative. Who knows how long Apple designers toiled over this very simple thing. They improved (in my opinion) upon something we all take for granted, scrolling through a list. This is their creative expression and it happens to resonate with a lot of people. Now why should someone else simply be able to copy it? Samsung feels that it can raid Apple's brain trust whenever it pleases and that's wrong. All of us - iOS, Android, BB, Windows - sharing common hardware standards and being able to interact with one another seamlessly is a very different issue in my opinion. Yes, hardware inventors should be compensated too, but it's not the same thing as protecting the user experience.
What I find particularly disturbing about Apple vs Samsung is Samsung's shocking disrespect towards its largest customer. It's pretty clear that Apple attempted to diffuse a potential situation early on by warning Samsung not to steal Apple's creative expression. And Samsung basically turned around and said f#*% you to its biggest customer.
I've heard other people elsewhere similarly claim that LTE patents are not SEP or encumbered with FRAND, but none of them offer any evidence or articles or anything to support. Care to be the first rational dissenter?
So if they are not part of a standard, a different implementation can become the standard and Samsung's phones can be banned by the FCC and other bodies around the world, for non-compliance.
So if they are not part of a standard, a different implementation can become the standard and Samsung's phones can be banned by the FCC and other bodies around the world, for non-compliance.
Obviously a "standard" for all to follow hasn't been set yet hence different pools of patents. Until LTE networks become prevalent throughout the world there won't be one standard.
That ruling was kind of funny in a bizarre way - the judge's reasoning was that nobody would mistake a Samsung phone for an iPhone because the Samsung phone isn't cool, like the iPhone is. Therefore, Samsung didn't copy.
It will be interesting to see what happens to that one on appeal. I'm not familiar enough with UK law to want to speculate, but it certainly looked like a strange decision so the appeal will be interesting.
But rubber-banding is something creative. Who knows how long Apple designers toiled over this very simple thing. They improved (in my opinion) upon something we all take for granted, scrolling through a list. This is their creative expression and it happens to resonate with a lot of people.
It's a KEY element in the User Experience. All these little things add up. They add up to iOS devices ranking #1 in customer satisfaction for nearly every year of their existence.
I am wondering how it Apple infringing on 4G/LTE patents? They are using a Qualcomm chip, which covers what ever 4G/LTE licensing. SInce the 4G/LTE patent case has been dealt with yet, that's all speculation. I highly doubt they will ban the iPhone 5 due to 4G/LTE when they are using a standard chip set designed and mfg by Qualcomm.
I don't think the patent exhaustion applies here. My understanding is that Qualcomm's customers are not covered under the current law. Qualcomm and Samsung likewise signed an agreement not to go after their customers years back, but Samsung ended that agreement when Apple filed lawsuits against Samsung last year.
Well, if Samsung's patents are valid, why not? Apple successfully banned Samsung's products in Germany. I guess Samsung could *copy* Apple's legal strategy and file lawsuits in Dusseldorf, Germany and Eastern District of Texas for favorable outcome.
Samsung is suing Apple over this patent in Germany because they claim they invented this and were awarded a European software patent for it.
I did a smiley on a portable device, f**k you Samsung and your stupid European software patent.
Not to take Samsung's side on this, but you have to remember that Asian (and other non-Roman) keyboards may not have the same input characteristics that our input has. A quick look at the patent seems to indicate that Samsung may be talking about a key input method to quickly type the equivalent with a non-Roman input device. This may have implications for release in non-English countries (including the huge Chinese market or Cyrillic countries) without any impact on the US.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
I wonder how the shoe will feel when the iPhone 5 is banned from import over LTE patents.
When will that happen?
Who needs standards anyway, different networks for different phones, so why don't you specify which LTE patents in particular?
If they aren't part of standards, they aren't needed, Apple has plenty of their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dshan
What I don't understand is that 'rubber banding' is clearly a software patent, and as far as I know (or thought I knew) software patents are not recognised in Europe (indeed virtually anywhere outside the USA), so how can this be ruled on by a German court? Clearly it has been so I guess the software patent situation isn't as black and white as that...
Really this is the heart of the problem - software patents are the major issue, should they be recognised in the first place? It's one thing to penalise Samsung et al for copying the patented hardware features of Apple's stuff (which inclues the physical design and appearance) but what if the feature they copy isn't hardware at all but a skeumorphic software effect like rubber banding? Is that patentable? Should it be?
You mean like this:-
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20080924&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP&CC=EP&NR=1215867B1&KC=B1&ND=4
Samsung is suing Apple over this patent in Germany because they claim they invented this
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic
I hope you don't hold your breath waiting for that ban to happen. Remember Apple owns some LTE patents (via Nortel) as well and uses chip sets from Qualcomm that are already licensed.
Apple also have other cross licensing agreements with Nokia and others.
If Samsung feels they don't have to contribute to standards or play by the rules, their methods should be stripped out, worked around and any standards non-compliant handsets should be banned by the FCC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
But as we've seen, different jurisdictions produce wildly different outcomes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18895384
Appealable outcomes which are still undergoing that process.
News headline "Samsung found guilty of copying Apple".
Decree imposed by judge "(advertisement) Samsung didn't copy Apple".
The fact is obviously Samsung copied Apple and have been found guilty in several jurisdictions, why should Apple be forced to lie in an advertisement?
Isn't the Judge inciting a crime, under false and misleading advertising laws?
Will they need disclaimers?
Samsung only copied Apple in the US and Germany but not in the UK with the same products made in the same factories.
How is this possible?
Colin Birss is obviously a nutcase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
I wonder how the shoe will feel when the iPhone 5 is banned from import over LTE patents.
I wonder if your babysitter knows you are on the internet without permission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
I wonder how the shoe will feel when the iPhone 5 is banned from import over LTE patents.
It's a shoe-in that it won't happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
I wonder how the shoe will feel when the iPhone 5 is banned from import over LTE patents.
I'll eat my shoe if that happens.
I'd be happy to serve you some crow if it doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I'll eat my shoe if that happens.
I'd be happy to serve you some crow if it doesn't.
You'd better take South Korea out of it, where some companies may use undue influence over the government to limit competition on their own turf.
Originally Posted by hill60
You'd better take South Korea out of it, where some companies may use undue influence over the government to limit competition on their own turf.
"OH LIKE APPLE DOESN'T BUY JUDGES AND JURIES. MISTRIAL!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
I wonder how the shoe will feel when the iPhone 5 is banned from import over LTE patents.
I guarantee you that will never happen. The LTE patents are standards-essential. And by the way, Apple has also contributed patents to the LTE standard, though not as many as Samsung has. What will happen (if Samsung goes ahead and tries to ban the iPhone over LTE) is that Europe and the U.S. will look further into standards-essential patent abuse by Samsung, which could lead to sanctions. The patents that Apple is suing over are not standards-essential, which gives Apple the right to ask for import bans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Appealable outcomes which are still undergoing that process.
News headline "Samsung found guilty of copying Apple".
Decree imposed by judge "(advertisement) Samsung didn't copy Apple".
The fact is obviously Samsung copied Apple and have been found guilty in several jurisdictions, why should Apple be forced to lie in an advertisement?
Isn't the Judge inciting a crime, under false and misleading advertising laws?
Will they need disclaimers?
Samsung only copied Apple in the US and Germany but not in the UK with the same products made in the same factories.
How is this possible?
Colin Birss is obviously a nutcase.
That ruling was kind of funny in a bizarre way - the judge's reasoning was that nobody would mistake a Samsung phone for an iPhone because the Samsung phone isn't cool, like the iPhone is. Therefore, Samsung didn't copy.
But rubber-banding is something creative. Who knows how long Apple designers toiled over this very simple thing. They improved (in my opinion) upon something we all take for granted, scrolling through a list. This is their creative expression and it happens to resonate with a lot of people. Now why should someone else simply be able to copy it? Samsung feels that it can raid Apple's brain trust whenever it pleases and that's wrong. All of us - iOS, Android, BB, Windows - sharing common hardware standards and being able to interact with one another seamlessly is a very different issue in my opinion. Yes, hardware inventors should be compensated too, but it's not the same thing as protecting the user experience.
What I find particularly disturbing about Apple vs Samsung is Samsung's shocking disrespect towards its largest customer. It's pretty clear that Apple attempted to diffuse a potential situation early on by warning Samsung not to steal Apple's creative expression. And Samsung basically turned around and said f#*% you to its biggest customer.
wrong...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
wrong...
I've heard other people elsewhere similarly claim that LTE patents are not SEP or encumbered with FRAND, but none of them offer any evidence or articles or anything to support. Care to be the first rational dissenter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
wrong...
So if they are not part of a standard, a different implementation can become the standard and Samsung's phones can be banned by the FCC and other bodies around the world, for non-compliance.
Obviously a "standard" for all to follow hasn't been set yet hence different pools of patents. Until LTE networks become prevalent throughout the world there won't be one standard.
It will be interesting to see what happens to that one on appeal. I'm not familiar enough with UK law to want to speculate, but it certainly looked like a strange decision so the appeal will be interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbyx
But rubber-banding is something creative. Who knows how long Apple designers toiled over this very simple thing. They improved (in my opinion) upon something we all take for granted, scrolling through a list. This is their creative expression and it happens to resonate with a lot of people.
It's a KEY element in the User Experience. All these little things add up. They add up to iOS devices ranking #1 in customer satisfaction for nearly every year of their existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
I am wondering how it Apple infringing on 4G/LTE patents? They are using a Qualcomm chip, which covers what ever 4G/LTE licensing. SInce the 4G/LTE patent case has been dealt with yet, that's all speculation. I highly doubt they will ban the iPhone 5 due to 4G/LTE when they are using a standard chip set designed and mfg by Qualcomm.
I don't think the patent exhaustion applies here. My understanding is that Qualcomm's customers are not covered under the current law. Qualcomm and Samsung likewise signed an agreement not to go after their customers years back, but Samsung ended that agreement when Apple filed lawsuits against Samsung last year.
Well, if Samsung's patents are valid, why not? Apple successfully banned Samsung's products in Germany. I guess Samsung could *copy* Apple's legal strategy and file lawsuits in Dusseldorf, Germany and Eastern District of Texas for favorable outcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
You mean like this:-
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20080924&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP&CC=EP&NR=1215867B1&KC=B1&ND=4
Samsung is suing Apple over this patent in Germany because they claim they invented this
Not to take Samsung's side on this, but you have to remember that Asian (and other non-Roman) keyboards may not have the same input characteristics that our input has. A quick look at the patent seems to indicate that Samsung may be talking about a key input method to quickly type the equivalent with a non-Roman input device. This may have implications for release in non-English countries (including the huge Chinese market or Cyrillic countries) without any impact on the US.