Court overturns Apple's $120M patent win against Samsung

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 67
    Can this be appealed?
  • Reply 22 of 67
    Here's an idea for Apple:  Fund a spinoff company that designs and sells Andoid phones at cost, which would have the net effect of destroying the profitability of any and all Android manufacturer.
    anantksundarampalominemwhiteargonautgtr
  • Reply 23 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,508member
    Good grief you apple fan boys are naive.  Do you think they don't spend just as many millions lobbying politicians as other corporations do?  Funny how people so strongly support a company that uses every loophole in the book to not pay anywhere near its fair share of taxes.  Quite frankly some of those patents should never have been granted as the technology had already existed just not been widely used.
    You'd make a stronger argument if you avoided insulting other members with silliness like "fanboy". If you have a valid point the juvenile insults aren't needed. If the insult is needed you don't have a strong argument to begin with. 
    londormwhitewetlanderargonautmontrosemacsmagman1979brakkenjony0
  • Reply 24 of 67
    Good grief you apple fan boys are naive.  Do you think they don't spend just as many millions lobbying politicians as other corporations do?  Funny how people so strongly support a company that uses every loophole in the book to not pay anywhere near its fair share of taxes.  Quite frankly some of those patents should never have been granted as the technology had already existed just not been widely used.
    Go away.
    mwhitewetlanderargonautmagman1979brakken
  • Reply 25 of 67
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    That must hurt.
  • Reply 26 of 67
    What happened to "and boy, have we patented it"?
    Simple, the courts determined the patents were invalid and unenforceable.  Hop on over to ArsTechnica and you can read an article that explains whey they were invalid.
    singularitywdowellgatorguycash907censored
  • Reply 27 of 67
    Justice! 
  • Reply 28 of 67

    rbonner said:
    ruled invalid a pair of Apple patents related to "slide to unlock" and autocorrect.
    What does this really mean, that the original patient was not granted properly? They never had it?
    Since the author never explained why they lost, you have to go to other tech websites to understand why.  I believe the autocorrect was not infringed and the slide to unlock was invalid.
    singularitycash907censored
  • Reply 29 of 67
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    The whole patent system is a disaster. Needs a clean slate.
  • Reply 30 of 67
    Let's hope that Apple's legal beagles have learned from their numerous defeats when it comes to the FBI case.  
  • Reply 31 of 67
    Good grief you apple fan boys are naive.  Do you think they don't spend just as many millions lobbying politicians as other corporations do?  Funny how people so strongly support a company that uses every loophole in the book to not pay anywhere near its fair share of taxes.  Quite frankly some of those patents should never have been granted as the technology had already existed just not been widely used.
    Apple does pay its fair share of taxes in accordance with the tax laws of this country. You probably didn't realize Apple is one of the top taxpaying companies in the United States. People like you are such hypocrites. I guarantee you that when you file your taxes, you look for every exemption and/or tax credit you can use to avoid paying more taxes. 
    mwhitetenlywetlanderargonautmagman1979brakken
  • Reply 32 of 67
    markbyrn said:
    Let's hope that Apple's legal beagles have learned from their numerous defeats when it comes to the FBI case.  
    Hopefuly the people involved are completely different  - I assume they are - as patent law isnt the same as criminal/constitutional law! They've got that George Bush election (and other renowned cases) guy who's wife died on 9/11 heading it 
  • Reply 33 of 67
    rbonner said:
    ruled invalid a pair of Apple patents related to "slide to unlock" and autocorrect.
    What does this really mean, that the original patient was not granted properly? They never had it?
    This is what I don't understand about patenting:

    If the Patent office awards a patent to a company, then it is natural for the company to take actions using and defending that patent. Fine. But then later... the courts issue a ruling that basically says, "Oops, we should have never awarded you that patent in the first place." And then the patent-holding company pays the price?' How can the courts invalidate a prior decision from USPTO?
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 34 of 67
    mobiusmobius Posts: 380member
    Please, Tim. Perform a corporate inversion, relocate to Ireland and compete in the US with all of the unreasonable advantages foreign competitors have. Apple is not welcome here anymore.
    When the Apple Spaceship is finished perhaps we'll see it take off and relocate to the moon where they'll be free of interfering backwards laws.

    iPhone
    Designed by Apple in Space
    Assembled on Earth
    SpamSandwichwetlanderargonautbrakkengtr
  • Reply 35 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,508member
    rbonner said:
    ruled invalid a pair of Apple patents related to "slide to unlock" and autocorrect.
    What does this really mean, that the original patient was not granted properly? They never had it?
    This is what I don't understand about patenting:

    If the Patent office awards a patent to a company, then it is natural for the company to take actions using and defending that patent. Fine. But then later... the courts issue a ruling that basically says, "Oops, we should have never awarded you that patent in the first place." And then the patent-holding company pays the price?' How can the courts invalidate a prior decision from USPTO?
    In actuality the "patent-holder" of that now-invalid patent may have reaped monetary benefits from intellectual property they never really owned. For instance in this particular case had Sumsung already paid the original royalty award they would not now get it back if later found invalid. Apple would have accomplished two things, keeping competitors for the "patented tech" at bay and collecting royalties as well for something they should not have had. Apple benefitted rather than "pay a price" for it. 
    singularity
  • Reply 36 of 67
    Wow, Apple is having their ass handed to them. Samsung, Google, Amazon, FBI... Sheesh! Gov is out of control
  • Reply 37 of 67
    I'm curious if there is in fact a location on Earth that is acceptable for a fair trial.

    West Texas, well we all know how that works out.

    California, Judge Koh is labeled as a Korean sympathizer.

    Washington D.C. Samsung paid off the judges.

    The list of excuses starts to get pretty thin after a while. It's tiring and quite frankly childish.

    What we need is patent reform and not the same old "us vs. them" mindset. People like to frame things into a simple picture of winners and losers. In reality what we want is a great game. Competition and advancement of new breathtaking technology is a good thing.

    We all want better hardware, better software, better services, better prices. If patents are a must then fair reasonable and non-discriminatory should be the rule. That benefits the consumer as well as benefiting the corporation.
    cash907censored
  • Reply 38 of 67
    All the courts seem to not understand innovation and the patent thing is just broken period! They mean absolutely NOTHING. Let everyone copy whatever you make patent or no patent. Yet in Texas these trolls have patents and not products at all and they win all the time. I just don't get why Patents are even applied for anymore if this is what happens. All the courts see them as nothing. Very disappointed with all the B.S.
    brakken
  • Reply 39 of 67
    Good, can we just be done with this nonsense now? Chasing a lame patent that should never have been granted in the first place has been a massive waste of both time and money, and done nothing but put Apple's lawyers in a higher tax bracket and fuel the hatred of the feverishly Apple loyal. Samsung made a shift to rounder phones with a touchscreen, big deal. That is clearly where the market was going and what customers wanted. That's how capitalism works, folks. Sony introduces the Walkman, and soon after Panasonic, Sharp, Emerson et all release their version of the Walkman. They're all smallish, battery powered with a headphone port, and they all play cassette tapes. As long as none of the companies copied the underlying tech behind each other's players, or in such cases where doing so was unavoidable they properly licensed said tech (something most other tech companies NOT named Apple usually do because they aren't OCD control freaks) then no harm no foul. That's how the world works: Chevy copies Ford, Ford copies Chevy, Coke copies Pepsi, Pepsi copies Coke, all in the name of giving customers what they want and profiting from that. 
    It's time for this time, money and resources suck to end. 
    edited February 2016 singularitycropr
  • Reply 40 of 67
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    America sides with the Korean counterfeit company once again!!

    Please, Tim. Perform a corporate inversion, relocate to Ireland and compete in the US with all of the unreasonable advantages foreign competitors have. Apple is not welcome here anymore.
    I've seriously thought about this. Apple is the highest tax payer in the U.S. Is a homegrown American success story and provides hundreds of thousands of jobs in the U.S. yet they're the most hated company in America.

    I think Apple has enough money to buy an island they can operate from or go foreign like Ireland or some really poor 3rd world country and boost their economy instead.
    mwhitecornchipargonautmagman1979brakkenpalomine
Sign In or Register to comment.