I guess if you're an atheist, you now have a creed for life: follow Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost
I sincerely hope that dreadful things happen to all who have been involved in defending Samsung. I have no faith that an appeal will reverse this gross injustice; as such, the only recourse is to hope for divine judgement.
Wow! What is your belief system - I wish to avoid it!
The pundits say Samsung and Google won in the end. They are wrong. Guilty is guilty. These days a lot of people have thick face skins. Their noses are also especially long. They all know Jobs outrages. They pretend they have not read Jobs words.
From now on, no Androids can use these three court validated patents. Without slide to unlock, without data detection, the Android users know they are hopelessly using an inferior device.
Linkify-like code is used so commonly in web applications that people have written dozens of javascript libraries providing functionality comparable to Linkify. See this stackoverflow thread for example (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/37684/how-to-replace-plain-urls-with-links). Should web developers start worrying about infringing the data detector patent?
The pundits say Samsung and Google won in the end. They are wrong. Guilty is guilty. These days a lot of people have thick face skins. Their noses are also especially long. They all know Jobs outrages. They pretend they have not read Jobs words.
From now on, no Androids can use these three court validated patents. Without slide to unlock, without data detection, the Android users know they are hopelessly using an inferior device.
From the amount awarded versus the amount demanded it looks like a "win" for Samsung. A fine that is practically pocket change for these companies means there is no "stick" to stop any infringing behaviour. It becomes a small cost of business. Outside the two camps who will support the standpoint of their chosen one the response will be "meh" and "what are they still squabbling.. oh grow up". These sort of legal disputes are a joy to the techies, nerds, fanbois and the media but to the rest of the world.. not.
Whilst in Europe any android phone, Samsung or HTC etc can still use slide to unlock to their hearts content. as its not even a valid patent and Samsung is not even copying Aplle, though now officially not as cool.
From the amount awarded versus the amount demanded it looks like a "win" for Samsung. A fine that is practically pocket change for these companies means there is no "stick" to stop any infringing behaviour. It becomes a small cost of business. Outside the two camps who will support the standpoint of their chosen one the response will be "meh" and "what are they still squabbling.. oh grow up". These sort of legal disputes are a joy to the techies, nerds, fanbois and the media but to the rest of the world.. not.
Whilst in Europe any android phone, Samsung or HTC etc can still use slide to unlock to their hearts content. as its not even a valid patent and Samsung is not even copying Aplle, though now officially not as cool.
lol, this is so far off the hardcore fanboy predictions this site did....
What?
That due to the dearth of innovation shown by Samsung, their high end sales will continue to slump as a real innovator like Apple steams ahead with 64bit smartphone goodness.
From the amount awarded versus the amount demanded it looks like a "win" for Samsung. A fine that is practically pocket change for these companies means there is no "stick" to stop any infringing behaviour. It becomes a small cost of business. Outside the two camps who will support the standpoint of their chosen one the response will be "meh" and "what are they still squabbling.. oh grow up". These sort of legal disputes are a joy to the techies, nerds, fanbois and the media but to the rest of the world.. not.
Whilst in Europe any android phone, Samsung or HTC etc can still use slide to unlock to their hearts content. as its not even a valid patent and Samsung is not even copying Aplle, though now officially not as cool.
HTC has settled with Apple two years ago. There is a rumor that HTC is paying Apple licensing fee. Apple only wants $40. Why is it so hard for Samsung. It sells S5 and Note 3 for $799. PC makers also pay Microsoft $40 to license Windows.
HTC has settled with Apple two years ago. There is a rumor that HTC is paying Apple licensing fee. Apple only wants $40. Why is it so hard for Samsung. It sells S5 and Note 3 for $799. PC makers also pay Microsoft $40 to license Windows.
It is possible that Samsung will choose to license. Google the real thief behind all this will be the biggest loser. It makes little money giving away Android OS. Its ad charges less on mobile devices.
HTC has settled with Apple two years ago. There is a rumor that HTC is paying Apple licensing fee. Apple only wants $40. Why is it so hard for Samsung. It sells S5 and Note 3 for $799. PC makers also pay Microsoft $40 to license Windows.
We don't actually know HTC's terms. They could be any amount. The other comparison is an entire OS rather than components of one. It's not a very good comparison.
We don't actually know HTC's terms. They could be any amount. The other comparison is an entire OS rather than components of one. It's not a very good comparison.
The monetary terms aren't known, but the rest of it pretty much is.
Note that I was responding to someone who referred specifically to the monetary terms, and then tried to extrapolate from there.
This stipulation from your link may have greatly influenced monetary negotiations. HTC hasn't been doing that well with smartphones, so it's unlikely that they could absorb the cost of ongoing litigation with uncertain outcome or high licensing costs. The issue of arbitration also limits the potential legal costs on both sides.
Quote:
The Apple-HTC agreement requires the parties to resolve through arbitration any dispute over whether or not an HTC product is an "HTC Cloned Product" or whether a feature in an HTC product is an "HTC Cloned Feature". If the arbitrators determine that an allegation of cloning was baseless, HTC is fine. If there is a finding of cloning, HTC will have 90 days to remedy the problem, and if cloning doesn't end at that point, Apple "will be entitled to seek an injunction from any applicable court of competent jurisdiction with respect to such Cloning during the Term, subject to applicable governing law".
Wow! What is your belief system - I wish to avoid it!
Yes, I highly recommend avoiding it (especially if you've seen evidence of it on other threads here as well - nasty stuff).
Anyway, I can understand the fatigue that people have about these lawsuits, and although I agree with some of the calls for reform of the patent system, I do think there is value in seeing these arguments play out with independent judgment occurring.
It is increasingly the case that software rules all in terms of being a product differential. And although there are some who question patenting software designs, I do think that there needs to be some deterrent in place to stop companies from blatantly ripping each other off.
The only thing that frustrates me is that the line can be so grey that people easily get confused. I often see articles about these lawsuits being countered by Samsung fans who basically say things like "Well, Apple didn't invent the mouse - they copied it from Xerox" and so on - clearly, statements like this misunderstand the nuances of product development and "copying". That's a tricky terrain to navigate in some ways, but I think it's important to have that conversation.
Yes, I highly recommend avoiding it (especially if you've seen evidence of it on other threads here as well - nasty stuff).
Anyway, I can understand the fatigue that people have about these lawsuits, and although I agree with some of the calls for reform of the patent system, I do think there is value in seeing these arguments play out with independent judgment occurring.
It is increasingly the case that software rules all in terms of being a product differential. And although there are some who question patenting software designs, I do think that there needs to be some deterrent in place to stop companies from blatantly ripping each other off.
The only thing that frustrates me is that the line can be so grey that people easily get confused. I often see articles about these lawsuits being countered by Samsung fans who basically say things like "Well, Apple didn't invent the mouse - they copied it from Xerox" and so on - clearly, statements like this misunderstand the nuances of product development and "copying". That's a tricky terrain to navigate in some ways, but I think it's important to have that conversation.
You're the kind of Android apologist that doesn't entirely dismiss patents but feels there should be some vague 'conversation' about them. You have half a care.
You're the kind of Android apologist that doesn't entirely dismiss patents but feels there should be some vague 'conversation' about them. You have half a care.
What this tells me is that you haven't read very much of my posts on these forums generally (in fact, I'm not even sure that you read the very post you responded to just now - otherwise you may have seen me defending Apple's right to patent software features).
If you had, you'd realise how entirely wrong this comment is.
What this tells me is that you haven't read very much of my posts on these forums generally (in fact, I'm not even sure that you read the very post you responded to just now - otherwise you may have seen me defending Apple's right to patent software features).
If you had, you'd realise how entirely wrong this comment is.
I was perhaps a bit harsh on you. However, your comment that 'software rules all in terms of being a product differential' is silly. Also, your sympathy for those who are 'fatigued' by the patent lawsuits I find weak and wrong-hearted.
I was perhaps a bit harsh on you. However, your comment that 'software rules all in terms of being a product differential' is silly. Also, your sympathy for those who are 'fatigued' by the patent lawsuits I find weak and wrong-hearted.
I don't take issue with the harshness (others can judge that for themselves) - the problem is that you answered a point I didn't make.
This latest post comes slightly closer, but is still filled with silly emotive rhetoric. Nevertheless, in an attempt to make my thoughts clearer, I'll have a go at responding.
On the first point about software ruling all; what's silly is if you only take that at face value and therefore misunderstand the point (which you apparently did).
The point I was making is the exact point that Steve Jobs made years ago about the iPod. He explained that on the surface, iPod is "just a small computer". What makes it a killer product is the software (and now, we might add "services" or "ecosystem" to that point).
The same is absolutely true about smart phones. The key differential is the software; the operating system and its UI, the ecosystem, the content. This does not mean that hardware can't be a differential, but software is key and Apple understands this.
Some people (perhaps the Android apologists you speak of?) occasionally suggest that no company should ever be able to patent or copyright aspects of software design. A subset of those people make valid points about "patent trolling" and overstretching the bounds of IP - but generally, what they are missing is that the competition and innovation is really being driven from the software end of things. In that kind of environment, I believe you have to allow companies to (within reason) patent and copyright designs so that there is an incentive to innovate (where those innovations can be protected from rip-offs).
On the second point...weak and wrong-hearted? Are you even serious, or are you just trolling now?
How is it weak and wrong-hearted to be tired of the constant legal battles? I would hazard a guess that Tim Cook himself is tired of them! Being tired of these battles does not mean that I don't support Apple's right to defend its patents, and you would be stretching the bow rather far to glean such an interpretation from my comments.
Instead of being needlessly emotive and silly, it would be helpful to focus on the substance of what I'm saying. I hope that this post clarifies significantly. If not, feel free to ask a question of me (perhaps without the clumsy attempts to insult me on a personal level).
Comments
Justice is always reprehensible to the unjust.
Tell that to the over 2000 people wrongfully convict of crimes over the last 23 years.
I guess if you're an atheist, you now have a creed for life: follow Samsung.
I sincerely hope that dreadful things happen to all who have been involved in defending Samsung. I have no faith that an appeal will reverse this gross injustice; as such, the only recourse is to hope for divine judgement.
Wow! What is your belief system - I wish to avoid it!
The pundits say Samsung and Google won in the end. They are wrong. Guilty is guilty. These days a lot of people have thick face skins. Their noses are also especially long. They all know Jobs outrages. They pretend they have not read Jobs words.
From now on, no Androids can use these three court validated patents. Without slide to unlock, without data detection, the Android users know they are hopelessly using an inferior device.
Linkify-like code is used so commonly in web applications that people have written dozens of javascript libraries providing functionality comparable to Linkify. See this stackoverflow thread for example (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/37684/how-to-replace-plain-urls-with-links). Should web developers start worrying about infringing the data detector patent?
The pundits say Samsung and Google won in the end. They are wrong. Guilty is guilty. These days a lot of people have thick face skins. Their noses are also especially long. They all know Jobs outrages. They pretend they have not read Jobs words.
From now on, no Androids can use these three court validated patents. Without slide to unlock, without data detection, the Android users know they are hopelessly using an inferior device.
From the amount awarded versus the amount demanded it looks like a "win" for Samsung. A fine that is practically pocket change for these companies means there is no "stick" to stop any infringing behaviour. It becomes a small cost of business. Outside the two camps who will support the standpoint of their chosen one the response will be "meh" and "what are they still squabbling.. oh grow up". These sort of legal disputes are a joy to the techies, nerds, fanbois and the media but to the rest of the world.. not.
Whilst in Europe any android phone, Samsung or HTC etc can still use slide to unlock to their hearts content. as its not even a valid patent and Samsung is not even copying Aplle, though now officially not as cool.
Grow Up to Sell Your SOUL & MIND to DEVIL, Don't YOU, Dr. FAUST !
From the amount awarded versus the amount demanded it looks like a "win" for Samsung. A fine that is practically pocket change for these companies means there is no "stick" to stop any infringing behaviour. It becomes a small cost of business. Outside the two camps who will support the standpoint of their chosen one the response will be "meh" and "what are they still squabbling.. oh grow up". These sort of legal disputes are a joy to the techies, nerds, fanbois and the media but to the rest of the world.. not.
Whilst in Europe any android phone, Samsung or HTC etc can still use slide to unlock to their hearts content. as its not even a valid patent and Samsung is not even copying Aplle, though now officially not as cool.
This behaviour is not new to Samsung, it has been their modus operandi for decades.
As long as they can get enough suckers to buy their crap they will continue to get away with this shit.
lol, this is so far off the hardcore fanboy predictions this site did....
What?
That due to the dearth of innovation shown by Samsung, their high end sales will continue to slump as a real innovator like Apple steams ahead with 64bit smartphone goodness.
From the amount awarded versus the amount demanded it looks like a "win" for Samsung. A fine that is practically pocket change for these companies means there is no "stick" to stop any infringing behaviour. It becomes a small cost of business. Outside the two camps who will support the standpoint of their chosen one the response will be "meh" and "what are they still squabbling.. oh grow up". These sort of legal disputes are a joy to the techies, nerds, fanbois and the media but to the rest of the world.. not.
Whilst in Europe any android phone, Samsung or HTC etc can still use slide to unlock to their hearts content. as its not even a valid patent and Samsung is not even copying Aplle, though now officially not as cool.
HTC has settled with Apple two years ago. There is a rumor that HTC is paying Apple licensing fee. Apple only wants $40. Why is it so hard for Samsung. It sells S5 and Note 3 for $799. PC makers also pay Microsoft $40 to license Windows.
HTC has settled with Apple two years ago. There is a rumor that HTC is paying Apple licensing fee. Apple only wants $40. Why is it so hard for Samsung. It sells S5 and Note 3 for $799. PC makers also pay Microsoft $40 to license Windows.
It is possible that Samsung will choose to license. Google the real thief behind all this will be the biggest loser. It makes little money giving away Android OS. Its ad charges less on mobile devices.
HTC has settled with Apple two years ago. There is a rumor that HTC is paying Apple licensing fee. Apple only wants $40. Why is it so hard for Samsung. It sells S5 and Note 3 for $799. PC makers also pay Microsoft $40 to license Windows.
We don't actually know HTC's terms. They could be any amount. The other comparison is an entire OS rather than components of one. It's not a very good comparison.
The monetary terms aren't known, but the rest of it pretty much is.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/htc-agreed-not-to-clone-apples-products.html?m=1
The monetary terms aren't known, but the rest of it pretty much is.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/htc-agreed-not-to-clone-apples-products.html?m=1
Note that I was responding to someone who referred specifically to the monetary terms, and then tried to extrapolate from there.
This stipulation from your link may have greatly influenced monetary negotiations. HTC hasn't been doing that well with smartphones, so it's unlikely that they could absorb the cost of ongoing litigation with uncertain outcome or high licensing costs. The issue of arbitration also limits the potential legal costs on both sides.
One in which stealing is wrong. As you wish to avoid it, I suggest you apply to work for Samsung if you don't already; they like thieves.
Wow! What is your belief system - I wish to avoid it!
Yes, I highly recommend avoiding it (especially if you've seen evidence of it on other threads here as well - nasty stuff).
Anyway, I can understand the fatigue that people have about these lawsuits, and although I agree with some of the calls for reform of the patent system, I do think there is value in seeing these arguments play out with independent judgment occurring.
It is increasingly the case that software rules all in terms of being a product differential. And although there are some who question patenting software designs, I do think that there needs to be some deterrent in place to stop companies from blatantly ripping each other off.
The only thing that frustrates me is that the line can be so grey that people easily get confused. I often see articles about these lawsuits being countered by Samsung fans who basically say things like "Well, Apple didn't invent the mouse - they copied it from Xerox" and so on - clearly, statements like this misunderstand the nuances of product development and "copying". That's a tricky terrain to navigate in some ways, but I think it's important to have that conversation.
You're the kind of Android apologist that doesn't entirely dismiss patents but feels there should be some vague 'conversation' about them. You have half a care.
You're the kind of Android apologist that doesn't entirely dismiss patents but feels there should be some vague 'conversation' about them. You have half a care.
What this tells me is that you haven't read very much of my posts on these forums generally (in fact, I'm not even sure that you read the very post you responded to just now - otherwise you may have seen me defending Apple's right to patent software features).
If you had, you'd realise how entirely wrong this comment is.
I was perhaps a bit harsh on you. However, your comment that 'software rules all in terms of being a product differential' is silly. Also, your sympathy for those who are 'fatigued' by the patent lawsuits I find weak and wrong-hearted.
I was perhaps a bit harsh on you. However, your comment that 'software rules all in terms of being a product differential' is silly. Also, your sympathy for those who are 'fatigued' by the patent lawsuits I find weak and wrong-hearted.
I don't take issue with the harshness (others can judge that for themselves) - the problem is that you answered a point I didn't make.
This latest post comes slightly closer, but is still filled with silly emotive rhetoric. Nevertheless, in an attempt to make my thoughts clearer, I'll have a go at responding.
On the first point about software ruling all; what's silly is if you only take that at face value and therefore misunderstand the point (which you apparently did).
The point I was making is the exact point that Steve Jobs made years ago about the iPod. He explained that on the surface, iPod is "just a small computer". What makes it a killer product is the software (and now, we might add "services" or "ecosystem" to that point).
The same is absolutely true about smart phones. The key differential is the software; the operating system and its UI, the ecosystem, the content. This does not mean that hardware can't be a differential, but software is key and Apple understands this.
Some people (perhaps the Android apologists you speak of?) occasionally suggest that no company should ever be able to patent or copyright aspects of software design. A subset of those people make valid points about "patent trolling" and overstretching the bounds of IP - but generally, what they are missing is that the competition and innovation is really being driven from the software end of things. In that kind of environment, I believe you have to allow companies to (within reason) patent and copyright designs so that there is an incentive to innovate (where those innovations can be protected from rip-offs).
On the second point...weak and wrong-hearted? Are you even serious, or are you just trolling now?
How is it weak and wrong-hearted to be tired of the constant legal battles? I would hazard a guess that Tim Cook himself is tired of them! Being tired of these battles does not mean that I don't support Apple's right to defend its patents, and you would be stretching the bow rather far to glean such an interpretation from my comments.
Instead of being needlessly emotive and silly, it would be helpful to focus on the substance of what I'm saying. I hope that this post clarifies significantly. If not, feel free to ask a question of me (perhaps without the clumsy attempts to insult me on a personal level).