This is nonsense. Microsoft managed to get the licensing agreements it wanted from nearly all the Android vendors. Apple managed to get the licensing terms it wanted in its settlements and also got a cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft. The Samsung case isn't over yet, so we'll see how that goes. Apple's suits were never about "thermonuclear war" or "hindering competition" (both notions are completely absurd), they were about licensing terms.
A few years ago that would've probably caused more than one Samsung factory line to shut down. Now times have changed.
First, there are a LOT more parts consumers these days. Many of them might have to switch to Samsung as a supplier, if Apple becomes the prime customer of their old supplier.
Second, Samsung themselves have become one of their own best customers. They recently took over from Apple as the largest electronics parts consumer in the world.
For that matter, Samsung semiconductor revenues could go up in the end, just from not having to sell Apple its usual high quantity at super low prices.
And one Samsung executive characterized the current sprawling litigation as "a loss" for the smartphone industry as a whole. Samsung VP David Eun said at last year's "D: Dive Into Media" conference that he felt lawsuits were stagnating innovation.
Of course it's a loss for the smartphone industry. Samsung needs to be able to freely copy Apple's products without fear of being sued! /s
Samsung is the biggest offender of this. They blatantly copy Apple, admit it in court, gambled that they can litigate it and overwhelm the courts, and in the end they have reaped so much money that any supposed win by Apple will be a drop in the monetary bucket. Just a part of doing business as far as Samsung is concerned.
"Patent litigation in the smartphone market has done little to shake up the status quo." Indeed. Perhaps that is the point. The litigation is a huge barrier to entry for HTC et al. (although admittedly HTC has fared rather well in its own litigation). "Apple and Samsung remain the dominant players, together accounting for 100 percent of the industry's profit." Surely, both Apple and Samsung enjoy their respective positions. Anyone else (i.e., HTC et al.) that gains traction will certainly take a share of the pie from Apple and/or Samsung.
Samsung is the biggest offender of this. They blatantly copy Apple, admit it in court, gambled that they can litigate it and overwhelm the courts, and in the end they have reaped so much money that any supposed win by Apple will be a drop in the monetary bucket. Just a part of doing business as far as Samsung is concerned.
One of the only legitimate solutions in this is to shut down Samsung's handset division and turn over all properties and documentation dating to mid-2006 therein to the authorities, who, after probably a year or two of going over everything, will bring further lawsuits against the individuals and groups directly responsible, if any, for the copyisting. A fine, as well, levied on Samsung for damages since 2008.
One of the only legitimate solutions in this is to shut down Samsung's handset division and turn over all properties and documentation dating to mid-2006 therein to the authorities, who, after probably a year or two of going over everything, will bring further lawsuits against the individuals and groups directly responsible, if any, for the copyisting. A fine, as well, levied on Samsung for damages since 2008.
"Look and feel" needs to actually be protected.
It would be easier for Cook to send some ex-Sayeret Matkal Ninjas in to take out Samsung's leadership.
It's hard to say whether the litigious nature of these companies hinders or helps innovation. I think patents should be very strong and hold a lot of weight in court, especially software patents, but should have a short life span. This would perhaps help short term innovation a lot with them trying to out-innovate one another, but in the long run humans as a species would benefit the most.
Thoughts?
On software patents:
First define what with software is truly novel. Doing such-and-such in the cloud should be no different than doing it on the Internet, on the TV, or through the mail.
Second, determine how you can make a "concept" patentable-- including processes, algorithms, and transformations. Patents are for embodiments of ideas, not the ideas themselves. The legalese of saying an idea is an embodiment of an idea corrupts this process.
On litigation and the current status:
Turning patents into commodities has plenty of problems; it is scarcity that gives a commodity value. When one patent has no true value, other than to a non-practicing entity, then the incentive to patent ideas disappears. Patents as a legal defense seems to have run its course for the most part.
If only 1,000 patents were granted per year for the most novel innovations, maybe the system could be fixed. Right now it is just agame.
News today that another Apple patent that Samsung was deemed to infringe has had those claims preliminarily rejected by the USPTO. This time it's the "translucent images on a computer display" patent (RE41922). So far four US Apple patents that Samsung was found guilty of infringing are now being re-examined and at least preliminarily rejected.
EDIT: FOSSPatents has posted a blog article about it.
Comments
This is nonsense. Microsoft managed to get the licensing agreements it wanted from nearly all the Android vendors. Apple managed to get the licensing terms it wanted in its settlements and also got a cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft. The Samsung case isn't over yet, so we'll see how that goes. Apple's suits were never about "thermonuclear war" or "hindering competition" (both notions are completely absurd), they were about licensing terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
Samsung has essentially lost $7.8 bn in revenue from Apple annually, which almost certainly would have much greater in 2013 considering the growth of Apple sales.
A few years ago that would've probably caused more than one Samsung factory line to shut down. Now times have changed.
First, there are a LOT more parts consumers these days. Many of them might have to switch to Samsung as a supplier, if Apple becomes the prime customer of their old supplier.
Second, Samsung themselves have become one of their own best customers. They recently took over from Apple as the largest electronics parts consumer in the world.
For that matter, Samsung semiconductor revenues could go up in the end, just from not having to sell Apple its usual high quantity at super low prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
And one Samsung executive characterized the current sprawling litigation as "a loss" for the smartphone industry as a whole. Samsung VP David Eun said at last year's "D: Dive Into Media" conference that he felt lawsuits were stagnating innovation.
Of course it's a loss for the smartphone industry. Samsung needs to be able to freely copy Apple's products without fear of being sued! /s
Samsung is the biggest offender of this. They blatantly copy Apple, admit it in court, gambled that they can litigate it and overwhelm the courts, and in the end they have reaped so much money that any supposed win by Apple will be a drop in the monetary bucket. Just a part of doing business as far as Samsung is concerned.
Originally Posted by sflocal
Samsung is the biggest offender of this. They blatantly copy Apple, admit it in court, gambled that they can litigate it and overwhelm the courts, and in the end they have reaped so much money that any supposed win by Apple will be a drop in the monetary bucket. Just a part of doing business as far as Samsung is concerned.
One of the only legitimate solutions in this is to shut down Samsung's handset division and turn over all properties and documentation dating to mid-2006 therein to the authorities, who, after probably a year or two of going over everything, will bring further lawsuits against the individuals and groups directly responsible, if any, for the copyisting. A fine, as well, levied on Samsung for damages since 2008.
"Look and feel" needs to actually be protected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
One of the only legitimate solutions in this is to shut down Samsung's handset division and turn over all properties and documentation dating to mid-2006 therein to the authorities, who, after probably a year or two of going over everything, will bring further lawsuits against the individuals and groups directly responsible, if any, for the copyisting. A fine, as well, levied on Samsung for damages since 2008.
"Look and feel" needs to actually be protected.
It would be easier for Cook to send some ex-Sayeret Matkal Ninjas in to take out Samsung's leadership.
Alas cyberpunk is so 80s and 90s.
First define what with software is truly novel. Doing such-and-such in the cloud should be no different than doing it on the Internet, on the TV, or through the mail.
Second, determine how you can make a "concept" patentable-- including processes, algorithms, and transformations. Patents are for embodiments of ideas, not the ideas themselves. The legalese of saying an idea is an embodiment of an idea corrupts this process.
On litigation and the current status:
Turning patents into commodities has plenty of problems; it is scarcity that gives a commodity value. When one patent has no true value, other than to a non-practicing entity, then the incentive to patent ideas disappears. Patents as a legal defense seems to have run its course for the most part.
If only 1,000 patents were granted per year for the most novel innovations, maybe the system could be fixed. Right now it is just agame.
News today that another Apple patent that Samsung was deemed to infringe has had those claims preliminarily rejected by the USPTO. This time it's the "translucent images on a computer display" patent (RE41922). So far four US Apple patents that Samsung was found guilty of infringing are now being re-examined and at least preliminarily rejected.
EDIT: FOSSPatents has posted a blog article about it.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/05/us-patent-office-tentatively-rejects.html