Quite the opposite. Most versions feature minor incremental updates save for the 1 feature which is exclusive to the item, i.e. 3G, Siri, TouchID for the purpose of making you purchase a new phone. And let's not forget about the iPad where the iPad 3 was released and then 6 months later the iPad 4 with retina came out.
there valid patents right now...samsung's case is there not of much value and apple is not telling u the right price...plus there are all the other patents there using and the design that is a total rip but you can't do anything about this in this case.
If samsung was not a huge company would this not have been stopped a long time ago...sony paid the price of samsung bad biz ethics now we are asked to let them try and kill apple...apple's way out is to innovate more...how is that justice.
Samsung has no defend on that they innovated any of this...a total ban on these product is the only way to make them change there ways.
this is the corp way...use lawyers and bury the competition...unlucky for them there competition is also there biggest customer...and has time and monies to get a little justice ...but still can't block them from using these patents.
It has been repeated already. The 3GS was around the time of the original Galaxy S, or at least close enough. I mentioned that they just continued with that naming convention. What makes you think it was deliberately aligned that way? They do ape Apple quite a bit, but this isn't a case where I see it as valuable marketing. I think some of you are so used to Samsung aping Apple that you view everything as a knockoff.
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.
Thank you for a thoughtful post.
I am not sure how any of it applies to the currently ongoing Apple-Samsung case -- pray tell? That said, let me respond to each.
1) Not possible. 'Business methods' is too broad. I can see definitions stretching all the way from the specific process by which Corning makes fiberglass or a specific process for making drugs, to the way a company answers a telephone or compensates an employee. I really don't understand what the phrase means. If you mean the latter variety, yes. But could you be more specific? And where would you draw the line for what is an un-patentable business method?
2) I don't understand. What do you mean by 'true' owner? The person/entity who originally did the research/development that led to the patent, or the person/entity who currently (fairly, legitimately bought the property and) owns it? Again, this is a vague term.
3) 'Loser pays' is not an option in any major aspect of US jurisprudence. It would not be possible to allow it one arena and not another. You can't wish for something like that in just IP law. The entire sub-structure of the practice of law in the US across every aspect of it would have to be changed. Realistically speaking, it's wishful thinking: simply not possible.
The reason? The argument goes that such a system would discriminate against the poor, since, all else equal (and given that all outcome is probabilistic), the poor will be less motivated to bring suits. Indeed, the 'hire a lawyer on a contingency fee' system in the US is seen as a further step towards tilting the playing field in favor of the less powerful.
(Other countries, such as the UK, do have a 'loser pays' system, and they don't allow lawyers on contingency)
4) This is a fair point. Especially in tech, where not just product life cycles, but even product category life cycles, are much shorter.
5) I am sincerely unable to parse this sentence (a triple negative, I think). I just don't follow what you're saying here.
6) I can't quarrel with that. Although, sometimes, building a case -- especially when two well-resourced companies with armies of lawyers are involved, and the case involves a dispute between cross-border entities -- does take time. So there has to be some exceptions.
I tend to think though, that in such rapidly changing industries, the amount of time that the lawyers and judges take to actually bring things to closure is getting to be laughably ridiculous.
7) I can't quarrel with that. Again, there may be exceptions in such rapidly-changing industries as the one we're currently talking about. But more generally, it simply follows the principle that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse.' It is meant perhaps as a deterrent: that someone should take the trouble to scope out what is out there that is already available to license, before just plowing ahead thinking they've invented the wheel.
I am failing to see, however, why/how/where any of the above applies to Apple v. Samsung Round 2? Please elaborate?
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.
Great post.
But, fwiw, don't waste your time trying to enlighten the clueless.
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.
RIGHT ON!
Samsung admits to copying Apple's features, then claims those features are of little value.
OK Samsung be smart for a change;
remove those Apple useless features and stop copying useless features from Apple immediately.
Have you even seen those feature on Moto X or other phones outside your small world of Apple? Oh wait, you don't even know that exists.
It is worthless to discuss anything who can't listen outside their little world who thinks what Apple does is always best blindly.
Beside that, Wasn't discussion about Who did it first from Patent point of view. Why someone always thinks that everything that Apple does is always the first time that feature existed, including notifications or whatever it is!!!!
Do you know how many more features exists on jail braked Android? Oh Wait, you don't even know you can do anything with that. It's normally practice of fanboys, who can't have anything left to prove, they will go to list jail brake feature.
Thank you for a thoughtful post.
. . .I am failing to see, however, why/how/where any of the above applies to Apple v. Samsung Round 2? Please elaborate?
The post you invited me to offer my opinion on was not restricted to Apple/Samsung nor were the links. It was a response to ErictheHalfBee who also wasn't commenting specifically on Apple/Samsung but instead (software?) patents in general.
1) Not possible. 'Business methods' is too broad. I can see definitions stretching all the way from the specific process by which Corning makes fiberglass or a specific process for making drugs, to the way a company answers a telephone or compensates an employee. I really don't understand what the phrase means. If you mean the latter variety, yes. But could you be more specific? And where would you draw the line for what is an un-patentable business method?
If you don't know what a business method patent refers to the definition if fairly easy to find. Just search "what is a business method patent" for the details. The short version is it's relatively new and once-upon-a-time unpatentable category and in general refers to using software to address a business problem. Technically it applies to the subject of finance but due to weasel-wording has been broadly interpreted as anything that might pertain to business. Often the only "innovation" in one is that a computer is used to solve it.
Many countries, including our neighbor to the North, consider it non-patentable subject matter. Here in the US it appears that SCOTUS may be reining business method patents in too after muddying the waters a few years ago with Bilski. Their stand is not yet entirely clear tho and may not be until another couple of cases are heard by them besides Alice v. CLS. So yes it's entirely possible that "software patents" may be largely disallowed within the next few years.
2) I don't understand. What do you mean by 'true' owner? The person/entity who originally did the research/development that led to the patent, or the person/entity who currently (fairly, legitimately bought the property and) owns it? Again, this is a vague term.
I don't know what's vague about it. If "true owner" isn't clear then read it as the legal term "Real party in interest" instead. Some companies assign patents to a shell company to avoid disclosing what company actually controls the IP. That's a tactic used by both NPE's as well as high-profile companies like Nokia for instance. Other times IP is sold or transferred with no mention at the USPTO of the new owner even tho current law requires it. That's more trickery that can camouflage a competitor so as to avoid counter-claims. Instead of being able to hide behind a curtain of anonymity the company(s) benefiting from licensing demands and/or a lawsuit should be disclosed. Why? If would help limit litigation used as a substitute for market competition.
3) 'Loser pays' is not an option in any major aspect of US jurisprudence. It would not be possible to allow it one arena and not another. You can't wish for something like that in just IP law. The entire sub-structure of the practice of law in the US across every aspect of it would have to be changed. Realistically speaking, it's wishful thinking: simply not possible.
The reason? The argument goes that such a system would discriminate against the poor, since, all else equal (and given that all outcome is probabilistic), the poor will be less motivated to bring suits. Indeed, the 'hire a lawyer on a contingency fee' system in the US is seen as a further step towards tilting the playing field in favor of the less powerful.
(Other countries, such as the UK, do have a 'loser pays' system, and they don't allow lawyers on contingency)
You should have noted my mention that "loser pays" should probably be extended to some other types of damage claims in addition to IP. We're actually in semi-agreement.
5) I am sincerely unable to parse this sentence (a triple negative, I think). I just don't follow what you're saying here.
Example: A pager sychronization patent from 15 years ago should not be used to gain an injunction on a cloud service introduced today. It was a use not anticipated by the original inventor and thus honestly not originally intended for protection. Vague or creative wording should NOT be allowed to make a patent so broad as to cover innovations the patent's inventor never considered.
Who cares if the feature existed before Apple released it? The fact is that these patents have not been found to be invalid which means, as of the time of this trial, Apple deserves to be compensated for their intellectual property. Just because you could get something on a jailbreak (on iOS or Android) doesn't mean that the hacker programmers that made the hack bothered to check into the patent office or patent the method they used. That's their problem, not Apple's or Google's. You can complain and whine about who was first... but in the U.S., it's first to file and your hacked up Android device doesn't make a single, solid legal argument, no matter how twisted your ponytail gets in the process.
Who cares if the feature existed before Apple released it? The fact is that these patents have not been found to be invalid which means, as of the time of this trial, Apple deserves to be compensated for their intellectual property. Just because you could get something on a jailbreak (on iOS or Android) doesn't mean that the hacker programmers that made the hack bothered to check into the patent office or patent the method they used. That's their problem, not Apple's or Google's. You can complain and whine about who was first... but in the U.S., it's first to file and your hacked up Android device doesn't make a single, solid legal argument, no matter how twisted your ponytail gets in the process.
With the opaque language software patents tend to be written in, what sort of information could a programmer actually get from the patent office? Assuming he manages to actually locate a relevant patent, would it be possible for him to interpret the claims correctly without retaining a high-powered lawyer? Further, even a lawyer's approval might not be enough to protect him from being dragged into lawsuits by a plaintiff seeking to maximize the coverage of his software patent, for example, by claiming that a tap is a zero-length swipe.
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.
Sorry for my arrogance, but at the time, I felt like an adult talking to a know-it-all teenager, who always ignores the input from their experienced elders.
Has Samsung ever said/defined what the "S" stands for? Jobs said the S in the iPhone 3GS stands for speed, because in that iteration Apple included a much faster processor. Apple used it as a sign of iterations of speed on the same form factor.
Why has Samsung put a random S in their phone names? Marketing? To confuse consumers?
I look forward to a thoughtful response/explanation, rather than attacking me.
Just because you don't know how, doesn't give you the right to the property. For instance, if I wanted a piece of land and went through the proper legal channels to obtain it and shuffled the scores of papers to be signed, it becomes mine because I followed the letter of the law. If I find a person in a tent camping on my land, I have the right to remove them from it. They can claim it's theirs and that they lived there for years, but unless they are willing to go through the proper legal channels and purchase the property with financial assets, it's not theres. Sorry. That's simply how capitalism and modern society works.
In lieu of doing that, this squatter has no basis of argument and nothing to complain about. That's how things are done by government and businesses alike. Just because a dude in a garage who contributes to an open-source project doesn't like that idea, doesn't mean the patent office should change its stance on intellectual property creation, protection and acquisition.
If someone has an issue with the property in question, they could follow the proper legal channels to counter the claims to the property using our legal system.
Sorry for my arrogance, but at the time, I felt like an adult talking to a know-it-all teenager, who always ignores the input from their experienced elders.
Has Samsung ever said/defined what the "S" stands for? Jobs said the S in the iPhone 3GS stands for speed, because in that iteration Apple included a much faster processor. Apple used it as a sign of iterations of speed on the same form factor.
Why has Samsung put a random S in their phone names? Marketing? To confuse consumers?
I look forward to a thoughtful response/explanation, rather than attacking me.
S stands for Super smart " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Okay another junk studied, this researcher should have never gotten her PhD. Her research as based on eye tracking to determine what feature people found interesting and useful, however, you can not see GPS on a device or the processors, hell most people have no clue what the processor is in a phone or any device, I am not sure how via eye tracking you can determine some persons preference for a processor or gps.
Quote:
According to CNET, Erdem offered specifics of her own studies that used eye-tracking technology to discover what consumers look for in a smartphone.
"As a group, the minor things didn't drive demand," Erdem said. "It was the major things that drive demand."
Included among these "minor" features are processors, an on-screen keyboard, and GPS.
Sorry for my arrogance, but at the time, I felt like an adult talking to a know-it-all teenager, who always ignores the input from their experienced elders.
Has Samsung ever said/defined what the "S" stands for? Jobs said the S in the iPhone 3GS stands for speed, because in that iteration Apple included a much faster processor. Apple used it as a sign of iterations of speed on the same form factor.
Why has Samsung put a random S in their phone names? Marketing? To confuse consumers?
I look forward to a thoughtful response/explanation, rather than attacking me.
I normally respond faster, but I have a nasty cold. As you mention it has something to do with marketing. The S seems to be the first place they used "Super amoled". I guess that could be it.
As far as explicitly trying to ape the naming convention, release dates according to wiki:
Galaxy S June 2010
Galaxy SII May 2011
Galaxy SIII May 2012
S4 April 2013
S5 April 2014
For the iphones I have
3GS June 2009
4 June 2010
4s October 2011
5 September 2012
5s September 2013
I don't see a particularly high alignment between their naming concurrent conventions, as both brands tend to push their most current models when it comes to marketing. It's only the current generation where the current models between the two brands happen to work out to an inversion in their names. When I look at this compared against other areas where they blatantly ape specific things, I don't see anything here that suggests they tried to move their naming convention into lockstep with Apple's.
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.
3) 'Loser pays' is not an option in any major aspect of US jurisprudence. It would not be possible to allow it one arena and not another. You can't wish for something like that in just IP law. The entire sub-structure of the practice of law in the US across every aspect of it would have to be changed. Realistically speaking, it's wishful thinking: simply not possible.
...and along comes the Supreme Court to make the impossible possible. Two very recent SCOTUS decisions are clarifying the meaning of Section 285 and telling Federal Courts they have it all wrong. Fee-shifting in patent infringement cases just became much more available. http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/04/discretion-attorney-litigation.html
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#.
Of course I'm determined. Even the most paranoid person is surprised by the stuff Samsung has been proven to copy. So why would I doubt something so obvious?
Apple had just unveiled the 3GS. S for speed.
No other tech product used the S.
Samsung copied extensively the iPhone 3GS.
They introduced a new phone called Galaxy S.
Why not just Galaxy? Why the S?
Of course it was one more way of confusing the consumer. It's pretty obvious to me unless you don't have a better explanation for it.
Of course it was one more way of confusing the consumer. It's pretty obvious to me unless you don't have a better explanation for it.
You might take note that this splintered off from a debate whether 5s vs s5 was to confuse the consumer. You're clearly committed to the narrative, so I'm just going to acknowledge the response and leave it at that.
Comments
Running an iPhone4. Enough said.
there valid patents right now...samsung's case is there not of much value and apple is not telling u the right price...plus there are all the other patents there using and the design that is a total rip but you can't do anything about this in this case.
If samsung was not a huge company would this not have been stopped a long time ago...sony paid the price of samsung bad biz ethics now we are asked to let them try and kill apple...apple's way out is to innovate more...how is that justice.
Samsung has no defend on that they innovated any of this...a total ban on these product is the only way to make them change there ways.
this is the corp way...use lawyers and bury the competition...unlucky for them there competition is also there biggest customer...and has time and monies to get a little justice ...but still can't block them from using these patents.
3GS, 4S.
Your turn.
It has been repeated already. The 3GS was around the time of the original Galaxy S, or at least close enough. I mentioned that they just continued with that naming convention. What makes you think it was deliberately aligned that way? They do ape Apple quite a bit, but this isn't a case where I see it as valuable marketing. I think some of you are so used to Samsung aping Apple that you view everything as a knockoff.
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.
Thank you for a thoughtful post.
I am not sure how any of it applies to the currently ongoing Apple-Samsung case -- pray tell? That said, let me respond to each.
1) Not possible. 'Business methods' is too broad. I can see definitions stretching all the way from the specific process by which Corning makes fiberglass or a specific process for making drugs, to the way a company answers a telephone or compensates an employee. I really don't understand what the phrase means. If you mean the latter variety, yes. But could you be more specific? And where would you draw the line for what is an un-patentable business method?
2) I don't understand. What do you mean by 'true' owner? The person/entity who originally did the research/development that led to the patent, or the person/entity who currently (fairly, legitimately bought the property and) owns it? Again, this is a vague term.
3) 'Loser pays' is not an option in any major aspect of US jurisprudence. It would not be possible to allow it one arena and not another. You can't wish for something like that in just IP law. The entire sub-structure of the practice of law in the US across every aspect of it would have to be changed. Realistically speaking, it's wishful thinking: simply not possible.
The reason? The argument goes that such a system would discriminate against the poor, since, all else equal (and given that all outcome is probabilistic), the poor will be less motivated to bring suits. Indeed, the 'hire a lawyer on a contingency fee' system in the US is seen as a further step towards tilting the playing field in favor of the less powerful.
(Other countries, such as the UK, do have a 'loser pays' system, and they don't allow lawyers on contingency)
4) This is a fair point. Especially in tech, where not just product life cycles, but even product category life cycles, are much shorter.
5) I am sincerely unable to parse this sentence (a triple negative, I think). I just don't follow what you're saying here.
6) I can't quarrel with that. Although, sometimes, building a case -- especially when two well-resourced companies with armies of lawyers are involved, and the case involves a dispute between cross-border entities -- does take time. So there has to be some exceptions.
I tend to think though, that in such rapidly changing industries, the amount of time that the lawyers and judges take to actually bring things to closure is getting to be laughably ridiculous.
7) I can't quarrel with that. Again, there may be exceptions in such rapidly-changing industries as the one we're currently talking about. But more generally, it simply follows the principle that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse.' It is meant perhaps as a deterrent: that someone should take the trouble to scope out what is out there that is already available to license, before just plowing ahead thinking they've invented the wheel.
I am failing to see, however, why/how/where any of the above applies to Apple v. Samsung Round 2? Please elaborate?
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.
Great post.
But, fwiw, don't waste your time trying to enlighten the clueless.
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.
RIGHT ON!
Samsung admits to copying Apple's features, then claims those features are of little value.
OK Samsung be smart for a change;
remove those Apple useless features and stop copying useless features from Apple immediately.
Nobody remembers who tried to cure cancer!
-The Way
The Slow Mo before iPhone was joke -only 0.1% from Android and iOS used that Gimmick
Jaibroken iOS was the first to add camera on Lock screen before android -(inclunding Widgets) but Apple done it a better job the right way
http://www.cultofmac.com/156692/how-to-get-ios-5-1-lock-screen-camera-shortcut-on-ios-5-0-1-right-now-jailbreak/
Do i need to continue....?
Have you even seen those feature on Moto X or other phones outside your small world of Apple? Oh wait, you don't even know that exists.
It is worthless to discuss anything who can't listen outside their little world who thinks what Apple does is always best blindly.
Beside that, Wasn't discussion about Who did it first from Patent point of view. Why someone always thinks that everything that Apple does is always the first time that feature existed, including notifications or whatever it is!!!!
Do you know how many more features exists on jail braked Android? Oh Wait, you don't even know you can do anything with that. It's normally practice of fanboys, who can't have anything left to prove, they will go to list jail brake feature.
The post you invited me to offer my opinion on was not restricted to Apple/Samsung nor were the links. It was a response to ErictheHalfBee who also wasn't commenting specifically on Apple/Samsung but instead (software?) patents in general.
If you don't know what a business method patent refers to the definition if fairly easy to find. Just search "what is a business method patent" for the details. The short version is it's relatively new and once-upon-a-time unpatentable category and in general refers to using software to address a business problem. Technically it applies to the subject of finance but due to weasel-wording has been broadly interpreted as anything that might pertain to business. Often the only "innovation" in one is that a computer is used to solve it.
Many countries, including our neighbor to the North, consider it non-patentable subject matter. Here in the US it appears that SCOTUS may be reining business method patents in too after muddying the waters a few years ago with Bilski. Their stand is not yet entirely clear tho and may not be until another couple of cases are heard by them besides Alice v. CLS. So yes it's entirely possible that "software patents" may be largely disallowed within the next few years.
I don't know what's vague about it. If "true owner" isn't clear then read it as the legal term "Real party in interest" instead. Some companies assign patents to a shell company to avoid disclosing what company actually controls the IP. That's a tactic used by both NPE's as well as high-profile companies like Nokia for instance. Other times IP is sold or transferred with no mention at the USPTO of the new owner even tho current law requires it. That's more trickery that can camouflage a competitor so as to avoid counter-claims. Instead of being able to hide behind a curtain of anonymity the company(s) benefiting from licensing demands and/or a lawsuit should be disclosed. Why? If would help limit litigation used as a substitute for market competition.
You should have noted my mention that "loser pays" should probably be extended to some other types of damage claims in addition to IP. We're actually in semi-agreement.
Example: A pager sychronization patent from 15 years ago should not be used to gain an injunction on a cloud service introduced today. It was a use not anticipated by the original inventor and thus honestly not originally intended for protection. Vague or creative wording should NOT be allowed to make a patent so broad as to cover innovations the patent's inventor never considered.
It's funny when people think if Apple/Samsung win, they win. Brand loyalty is pathetic.
Go tell that to the guy who owns thousands of shares off AAPL.
Who cares if the feature existed before Apple released it? The fact is that these patents have not been found to be invalid which means, as of the time of this trial, Apple deserves to be compensated for their intellectual property. Just because you could get something on a jailbreak (on iOS or Android) doesn't mean that the hacker programmers that made the hack bothered to check into the patent office or patent the method they used. That's their problem, not Apple's or Google's. You can complain and whine about who was first... but in the U.S., it's first to file and your hacked up Android device doesn't make a single, solid legal argument, no matter how twisted your ponytail gets in the process.
Who cares if the feature existed before Apple released it? The fact is that these patents have not been found to be invalid which means, as of the time of this trial, Apple deserves to be compensated for their intellectual property. Just because you could get something on a jailbreak (on iOS or Android) doesn't mean that the hacker programmers that made the hack bothered to check into the patent office or patent the method they used. That's their problem, not Apple's or Google's. You can complain and whine about who was first... but in the U.S., it's first to file and your hacked up Android device doesn't make a single, solid legal argument, no matter how twisted your ponytail gets in the process.
With the opaque language software patents tend to be written in, what sort of information could a programmer actually get from the patent office? Assuming he manages to actually locate a relevant patent, would it be possible for him to interpret the claims correctly without retaining a high-powered lawyer? Further, even a lawyer's approval might not be enough to protect him from being dragged into lawsuits by a plaintiff seeking to maximize the coverage of his software patent, for example, by claiming that a tap is a zero-length swipe.
Sorry for my arrogance, but at the time, I felt like an adult talking to a know-it-all teenager, who always ignores the input from their experienced elders.
Has Samsung ever said/defined what the "S" stands for? Jobs said the S in the iPhone 3GS stands for speed, because in that iteration Apple included a much faster processor. Apple used it as a sign of iterations of speed on the same form factor.
Why has Samsung put a random S in their phone names? Marketing? To confuse consumers?
I look forward to a thoughtful response/explanation, rather than attacking me.
Just because you don't know how, doesn't give you the right to the property. For instance, if I wanted a piece of land and went through the proper legal channels to obtain it and shuffled the scores of papers to be signed, it becomes mine because I followed the letter of the law. If I find a person in a tent camping on my land, I have the right to remove them from it. They can claim it's theirs and that they lived there for years, but unless they are willing to go through the proper legal channels and purchase the property with financial assets, it's not theres. Sorry. That's simply how capitalism and modern society works.
In lieu of doing that, this squatter has no basis of argument and nothing to complain about. That's how things are done by government and businesses alike. Just because a dude in a garage who contributes to an open-source project doesn't like that idea, doesn't mean the patent office should change its stance on intellectual property creation, protection and acquisition.
If someone has an issue with the property in question, they could follow the proper legal channels to counter the claims to the property using our legal system.
Sorry for my arrogance, but at the time, I felt like an adult talking to a know-it-all teenager, who always ignores the input from their experienced elders.
Has Samsung ever said/defined what the "S" stands for? Jobs said the S in the iPhone 3GS stands for speed, because in that iteration Apple included a much faster processor. Apple used it as a sign of iterations of speed on the same form factor.
Why has Samsung put a random S in their phone names? Marketing? To confuse consumers?
I look forward to a thoughtful response/explanation, rather than attacking me.
S stands for Super smart
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Okay another junk studied, this researcher should have never gotten her PhD. Her research as based on eye tracking to determine what feature people found interesting and useful, however, you can not see GPS on a device or the processors, hell most people have no clue what the processor is in a phone or any device, I am not sure how via eye tracking you can determine some persons preference for a processor or gps.
"As a group, the minor things didn't drive demand," Erdem said. "It was the major things that drive demand."
Included among these "minor" features are processors, an on-screen keyboard, and GPS.
Sorry for my arrogance, but at the time, I felt like an adult talking to a know-it-all teenager, who always ignores the input from their experienced elders.
Has Samsung ever said/defined what the "S" stands for? Jobs said the S in the iPhone 3GS stands for speed, because in that iteration Apple included a much faster processor. Apple used it as a sign of iterations of speed on the same form factor.
Why has Samsung put a random S in their phone names? Marketing? To confuse consumers?
I look forward to a thoughtful response/explanation, rather than attacking me.
I normally respond faster, but I have a nasty cold. As you mention it has something to do with marketing. The S seems to be the first place they used "Super amoled". I guess that could be it.
As far as explicitly trying to ape the naming convention, release dates according to wiki:
Galaxy S June 2010
Galaxy SII May 2011
Galaxy SIII May 2012
S4 April 2013
S5 April 2014
For the iphones I have
3GS June 2009
4 June 2010
4s October 2011
5 September 2012
5s September 2013
I don't see a particularly high alignment between their naming concurrent conventions, as both brands tend to push their most current models when it comes to marketing. It's only the current generation where the current models between the two brands happen to work out to an inversion in their names. When I look at this compared against other areas where they blatantly ape specific things, I don't see anything here that suggests they tried to move their naming convention into lockstep with Apple's.
...and along comes the Supreme Court to make the impossible possible. Two very recent SCOTUS decisions are clarifying the meaning of Section 285 and telling Federal Courts they have it all wrong. Fee-shifting in patent infringement cases just became much more available.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/04/discretion-attorney-litigation.html
Edited for better link
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#.
Of course I'm determined. Even the most paranoid person is surprised by the stuff Samsung has been proven to copy. So why would I doubt something so obvious?
Apple had just unveiled the 3GS. S for speed.
No other tech product used the S.
Samsung copied extensively the iPhone 3GS.
They introduced a new phone called Galaxy S.
Why not just Galaxy? Why the S?
Of course it was one more way of confusing the consumer. It's pretty obvious to me unless you don't have a better explanation for it.
Of course it was one more way of confusing the consumer. It's pretty obvious to me unless you don't have a better explanation for it.
You might take note that this splintered off from a debate whether 5s vs s5 was to confuse the consumer. You're clearly committed to the narrative, so I'm just going to acknowledge the response and leave it at that.