Copying and duplicating is what Asian commerce is based on, I believe, and we see more copies of Western products in Asia than anywhere else. Check out China's copies of Western automobiles!
The value of a patent does not bestow easy infringement. If the court were to allow this line of reasoning to go forward the value of all patents and trademarks would be in danger.
Patent value is irrelevant to infringement. We need to hold this law and the views attached to it high. Regardless of "value", perceived or otherwise a patent is ironclad. You want to use it? Pay the asking price. There are rules here. We don't steal from our neighbor and tell the judge our covetous act was a compliment to the neighbors' taste.
If these patents are as worthless as Samsung claims, then why don't they just drop them out of their products? They'd lose nothing of any value, by their logic.
I was going to say almost the same thing lol.
Apple: "Then you'll quit using our patented features?"
Scamsung: "Wen you creates somethings else to copys that better, yes."
Samsung -- who declared internal crises of "design" and "understanding", desperately trying to comprehend (and replicate) how Apple gets their customers to flock to their stores and line up in droves for new product releases -- NOW declares that they KNOW the value (or lack thereof) of certain feature groups contained in those same Apple products.
Can't have it both ways Sammy... either you do NOT understand why Apple is so successful (and therefore cannot meaningfully inform the discussion of "what's valuable here"), or you DO understand -- as implied by this testimony -- and then the question becomes, why haven't you been able to replicate iPhone's profitability and success? Since you've "replicated" pretty much everything else related to iPhone marketing, design, accessories and implementation, and yet not achieved the same level of brand loyalty or overall "success".......
Attention to detail wins. Smart and meaningful implementation of features wins. High quality products at a fair price wins. Consistently meeting or exceeding expectations at all levels wins. I could add another couple of dozen of those. All Apple, little of it Samsung.
That's the reality... the patented features DO matter, because they define the win.
What's funny is that Samung's defense is percisely the reason I love Apple. Apple's attention to even the smallest detail is remarkable and is well known in the industry. I don't care if Samsung thinks those things not important. True, there's a certain segment of the market who could care less, but I and many other people do care.
As noted by Re/code, the statement was slightly different from her deposition, in which Erdem said Apple's patents covered features that only a "weird" or "crazy person" or a "techno-whatever" would see as valuable.
Apparently Erdem was never into a situation were he had tell his wife "that his having a late night with his buddies" that way he would it known that having Slide to Unlock to a Multi-touchscreen is pretty damn usefull.
Shamesung is so pathetic that they couldnt even come with their own name for their products..they had to copy that too like the "Galaxy" name of their popular handsets wich was based on Apple OS X Wallpaper
And when did they begin using the S? Oh right, the year the 3GS came out.
You seem quite determined on this one. Are you suggesting it was an attempt to confuse the consumer? I don't really see it with S vs 3GS. Prior to this post it was about inversion of #S and S#.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMember
Siri was acquired by Apple in April 28, 2010 and rumors about iPhone 4S name was announced before Samsung Galaxy S was released not mention the iPhone 3G "S".. so who's trolling who?
Well if you have to ask , you are the one posting abject nonsense. Some of you guys are really committed to the narrative for whatever reason. I initially called it due to trying to paint the inversion that way. Now it seems to be a contention of using S as a literal character within the name.
You seem quite determined on this one. Are you suggesting it was an attempt to confuse the consumer? I don't really see it with S vs 3GS. Prior to this post it was about inversion of #S and S#.
Well if you have to ask , you are the one posting abject nonsense. Some of you guys are really committed to the narrative for whatever reason. I initially called it due to trying to paint the inversion that way. Now it seems to be a contention of using S as a literal character within the name.
You seem really naive.
It obvious that Samsung wants to have a S7 released before Apple has a 7S or 7s or earlier . That's how marketing works. The intention IS to confuse consumers.
Apple used the S to mean speed when upgrading from the 3G to 3GS. Then Apple used it to signify iterations on the same form factors.
What does the S stand for in the Galaxy line-up? Samsung Galaxy S(amsung)3,4,5?
Other than one off-the-cuff remark to Hauser I don't believe Samsungs argument goes so far as to say the patents have no value. They argue they're not as valuable as Apple would like to claim, they also aren't infringed, and in addition some may not even be valid. They're all over the page and trying to cover all the bases but saying the patents have no value at all isn't one of them. I personally disagree with some of the arguments from both sides but doesn't matter as I'm not on the jury.
As an aside the text completion claim Apple is asserting against Samsung is looking like it may well be tossed by the USPTO. Until then Apple is within it's rights to collect royalties and/or damages on it. Seems a bit quirky that you can't get back money already paid when it's determined a patent should never have been granted as written in the first place. You end up paying for something the wasn't actually owned by the claimant, but it is what it is.
Another good comment by GG.
I think Apple is asking too much but at the same time, they did so expecting less than 1/2 asking, and they know they can't get any injunctions.
In regards to your second paragraph, I agree, although it may be reinforced and become even stronger, as one Apple Patent FM wrote about.
Samsung doesn't want to lose face, Asian culture about honor, so they don't want to settle and cross license. Samsung is 0-1 and wants to be 1-1 on wins and losses to restore their image. If Samsung losses, 0-2, they will settle with a cross licensing agreement while disparaging the US court system as biased against foreigners.
It obvious that Samsung wants to have a S7 released before Apple has a 7S or 7s or earlier . That's how marketing works. The intention IS to confuse consumers.
Apple used the S to mean speed when upgrading from the 3G to 3GS. Then Apple used it to signify iterations on the same form factors.
What does the S stand for in the Galaxy line-up? Samsung Galaxy S(amsung)3,4,5?
It's their marketing you feeble minded toad.
That I elicited such an angry response says more about you than me. I suggest you read through the thread. This started with an argument over whether they intentionally used S5 as an inversion of 5S. I pointed to the progression of the line, as I think it's unlikely (and probably unprovable) that they tried to predict Apple's future naming convention and pick theirs in such a way that it would line up via inverted spelling every other generation.
There's about a year a half between the two events (Galaxy S in May/10 and iPhone 4S in October/2011) so I doubt there was already much in the way of rumor on the naming of 4S 18 months ahead of time. So I don't really think the Galaxy S was so named in anticipation of the 4S either.
Besides those patents Shamesung copied more than 1000 things from Apple and whole world knows that, <span style="line-height:1.4em;">e</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">ven now recently they copied Apple'iPhone features with their S5: Fingerprint Scanner, Gold obtion color, Camera located on Locked Screen, Slow Mo 720p at 128 fps (Depth of field), fast autofocus, SHealth + Heartrate sensor (M7 + Nike app), TouchWizz (iOS 7 look)...i</span>
don't understand why Shamesung doesnt atleast pay for that 5 patents for what Apple is asking.
Not so much a lie as a difference of opinion and supported by whatever stats suit your fancy. Here are some on the other side supported by evidence that patent litigation, particularly but not exclusively by PAE's, can cause economic and social harm, demand resources better spent on building businesses, and potentially hinder the pace of innovation.
What's important to note is that some with these opinions actually have the power to change at least a few of the rules.
Why don't you tell us how you would change it, instead of giving us some links (as you always seem to do). If you've read all this, surely you do have a view?
I think that the discussion of if they are valid is off topic. Say they are, does not matter, they are granted, Samsung crossed the line. Now maybe they have them declared invalid, I think that Samsung should still have to pay for the time they used them when they were valid.
Why don't you tell us how you would change it, instead of giving us some links (as you always seem to do). If you've read all this, surely you do have a view?
First: Make business methods un-patentable
Second: Require disclosure of the true owner of a patent. If you don't know who owns one how do you contact them for licensing discussions or understand what your options might be?
Third: Make "loser pays" a required and written consideration by the courts in at least patent infringement cases (maybe cast a wider net than that to include some other types of damage claims). That might help avoid some lawsuits from patentees on a fishing expedition.
Fourth: have an honest debate on whether patents as a category should have the period of exclusive use reduced from the current 20 years ( and even longer in certain circumstances).
Fifth: Disallow infringement action over patent claims that would not have specifically anticipated the current use. Tighten claims construction standards, requiring greater specificity during USPTO patent app exams.
Sixth: Enact a "window of opportunity" for patentee's to notify a potential infringer, say for instance within 24 months of the time they become aware of it. Plenty liberal enough. No more sitting on a knowledge of potential infringement until that entity has a successful and/or profitable product or feature that might make use of it. That single requirement would heavily impact the actions of "patent trolls"
Seventh: Limit damages to the period only after the potential infringer was notified in writing. No going back years to claim damages on something the possible infringer might not and in some cases could not have been aware of. That's another thing "trolls" won't like.
You're more than welcome to comment on any or all of those points Anant rather than just lobbing the snarky one and two liners "as you always seem to do". I would imagine you disagree with some of them and have supportable reasons for it.
I think that the discussion of if they are valid is off topic. Say they are, does not matter, they are granted, Samsung crossed the line. Now maybe they have them declared invalid, I think that Samsung should still have to pay for the time they used them when they were valid.
The law disagrees with you. Questions on validity is a proper defense, and IMO should be. Apple themselves often makes that part of their strategy against patent claims.
Brand loyalty is not pathetic. It's highly sought after by companies big and small. Companies like Samsung covet Apple's brand loyalty, even if they don't understand it. Their ads have poked fun at Apple line-waiters, but in reality, Samsung has sent marketing people to interview real line-waiters about why they stand in line for Apple products. They've never seen anything like it before in the smart phone world. Back when Palm Treo and BlackBerry ruled the smartphone world, nobody stood in long lines for days.
I get that you think you're smarter than everyone who loves their favorite brand. I get that you think they are pathetic. I get that you probably think it's not deserved. But for the businesses who have earned it, through consistent delivery and service, it is deserved. And they have to continue to work hard to keep it, so it keeps their standards high. Reputation capital earns brand loyalty over time, and this is ingrained in human nature. If you don't get that, you don't get humans, and that doesn't make you "smarter than" or "above" the rest of us. If you reduce the B2C relationship to a purely economic transaction ("dollars for devices"), you're just as clueless as Samsung.
Comments
The value of a patent does not bestow easy infringement. If the court were to allow this line of reasoning to go forward the value of all patents and trademarks would be in danger.
Patent value is irrelevant to infringement. We need to hold this law and the views attached to it high. Regardless of "value", perceived or otherwise a patent is ironclad. You want to use it? Pay the asking price. There are rules here. We don't steal from our neighbor and tell the judge our covetous act was a compliment to the neighbors' taste.
Great write up.
If these patents are as worthless as Samsung claims, then why don't they just drop them out of their products? They'd lose nothing of any value, by their logic.
I was going to say almost the same thing lol.
Apple: "Then you'll quit using our patented features?"
Scamsung: "Wen you creates somethings else to copys that better, yes."
Can't have it both ways Sammy... either you do NOT understand why Apple is so successful (and therefore cannot meaningfully inform the discussion of "what's valuable here"), or you DO understand -- as implied by this testimony -- and then the question becomes, why haven't you been able to replicate iPhone's profitability and success? Since you've "replicated" pretty much everything else related to iPhone marketing, design, accessories and implementation, and yet not achieved the same level of brand loyalty or overall "success".......
Attention to detail wins. Smart and meaningful implementation of features wins. High quality products at a fair price wins. Consistently meeting or exceeding expectations at all levels wins. I could add another couple of dozen of those. All Apple, little of it Samsung.
That's the reality... the patented features DO matter, because they define the win.
Case closed...
As noted by Re/code, the statement was slightly different from her deposition, in which Erdem said Apple's patents covered features that only a "weird" or "crazy person" or a "techno-whatever" would see as valuable.
Shamesung is so pathetic that they couldnt even come with their own name for their products..they had to copy that too like the "Galaxy" name of their popular handsets wich was based on Apple OS X Wallpaper
And when did they begin using the S? Oh right, the year the 3GS came out.
You seem quite determined on this one. Are you suggesting it was an attempt to confuse the consumer? I don't really see it with S vs 3GS. Prior to this post it was about inversion of #S and S#.
Siri was acquired by Apple in April 28, 2010 and rumors about iPhone 4S name was announced before Samsung Galaxy S was released not mention the iPhone 3G "S".. so who's trolling who?
Well if you have to ask
, you are the one posting abject nonsense. Some of you guys are really committed to the narrative for whatever reason. I initially called it due to trying to paint the inversion that way. Now it seems to be a contention of using S as a literal character within the name.
I'm sorry, is this the five minute argument?
You seem really naive.
It obvious that Samsung wants to have a S7 released before Apple has a 7S or 7s or earlier . That's how marketing works. The intention IS to confuse consumers.
Apple used the S to mean speed when upgrading from the 3G to 3GS. Then Apple used it to signify iterations on the same form factors.
What does the S stand for in the Galaxy line-up? Samsung Galaxy S(amsung)3,4,5?
It's their marketing you feeble minded toad.
Another good comment by GG.
I think Apple is asking too much but at the same time, they did so expecting less than 1/2 asking, and they know they can't get any injunctions.
In regards to your second paragraph, I agree, although it may be reinforced and become even stronger, as one Apple Patent FM wrote about.
Samsung doesn't want to lose face, Asian culture about honor, so they don't want to settle and cross license. Samsung is 0-1 and wants to be 1-1 on wins and losses to restore their image. If Samsung losses, 0-2, they will settle with a cross licensing agreement while disparaging the US court system as biased against foreigners.
You seem really naive.
It obvious that Samsung wants to have a S7 released before Apple has a 7S or 7s or earlier . That's how marketing works. The intention IS to confuse consumers.
Apple used the S to mean speed when upgrading from the 3G to 3GS. Then Apple used it to signify iterations on the same form factors.
What does the S stand for in the Galaxy line-up? Samsung Galaxy S(amsung)3,4,5?
It's their marketing you feeble minded toad.
That I elicited such an angry response says more about you than me. I suggest you read through the thread. This started with an argument over whether they intentionally used S5 as an inversion of 5S. I pointed to the progression of the line, as I think it's unlikely (and probably unprovable) that they tried to predict Apple's future naming convention and pick theirs in such a way that it would line up via inverted spelling every other generation.
3GS
Especially the gold obtion color.
Why don't you tell us how you would change it, instead of giving us some links (as you always seem to do). If you've read all this, surely you do have a view?
I think that the discussion of if they are valid is off topic. Say they are, does not matter, they are granted, Samsung crossed the line. Now maybe they have them declared invalid, I think that Samsung should still have to pay for the time they used them when they were valid.
First: Make business methods un-patentable
Second: Require disclosure of the true owner of a patent. If you don't know who owns one how do you contact them for licensing discussions or understand what your options might be?
Third: Make "loser pays" a required and written consideration by the courts in at least patent infringement cases (maybe cast a wider net than that to include some other types of damage claims). That might help avoid some lawsuits from patentees on a fishing expedition.
Fourth: have an honest debate on whether patents as a category should have the period of exclusive use reduced from the current 20 years ( and even longer in certain circumstances).
Fifth: Disallow infringement action over patent claims that would not have specifically anticipated the current use. Tighten claims construction standards, requiring greater specificity during USPTO patent app exams.
Sixth: Enact a "window of opportunity" for patentee's to notify a potential infringer, say for instance within 24 months of the time they become aware of it. Plenty liberal enough. No more sitting on a knowledge of potential infringement until that entity has a successful and/or profitable product or feature that might make use of it. That single requirement would heavily impact the actions of "patent trolls"
Seventh: Limit damages to the period only after the potential infringer was notified in writing. No going back years to claim damages on something the possible infringer might not and in some cases could not have been aware of. That's another thing "trolls" won't like.
You're more than welcome to comment on any or all of those points Anant rather than just lobbing the snarky one and two liners "as you always seem to do". I would imagine you disagree with some of them and have supportable reasons for it.
The law disagrees with you. Questions on validity is a proper defense, and IMO should be. Apple themselves often makes that part of their strategy against patent claims.
It's funny when people think if Apple/Samsung win, they win. Brand loyalty is pathetic.
As opposed to what .....no loyalty at all ?
Brand loyalty is pathetic.
Brand loyalty is not pathetic. It's highly sought after by companies big and small. Companies like Samsung covet Apple's brand loyalty, even if they don't understand it. Their ads have poked fun at Apple line-waiters, but in reality, Samsung has sent marketing people to interview real line-waiters about why they stand in line for Apple products. They've never seen anything like it before in the smart phone world. Back when Palm Treo and BlackBerry ruled the smartphone world, nobody stood in long lines for days.
I get that you think you're smarter than everyone who loves their favorite brand. I get that you think they are pathetic. I get that you probably think it's not deserved. But for the businesses who have earned it, through consistent delivery and service, it is deserved. And they have to continue to work hard to keep it, so it keeps their standards high. Reputation capital earns brand loyalty over time, and this is ingrained in human nature. If you don't get that, you don't get humans, and that doesn't make you "smarter than" or "above" the rest of us. If you reduce the B2C relationship to a purely economic transaction ("dollars for devices"), you're just as clueless as Samsung.
Your turn.