Samsung is getting nailed... live update as it happens on the Verge

Forums › Android › Samsung is getting nailed... live update as it happens on the Verge

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ... | 21

524 posts

Ultimate Geek

#678190 28-Aug-2012 14:15

tdgeek:
ibuksh: Well that all points back to something someone has already mentioned earlier in this thread and I would most happily reiterate.. the US Patent system is broken..

the patent officer sees its from Apple and says.."hey.. it must be their original idea, no one else could have thought of it before." and boom.. its patented to apple.

What would be more awesome is someone file a case against Apple for patenting ideas thats been around already for a long time and not their "original"

Patents laws right or wrong are not only/mainly used by Apple. All IT companies use them, heavily. Seems to me to be bias, correct me if I am wrong.

Of course all companies use them heavily.. thats not a doubt

But I suppose in this thread we were discussing how it stands with Apple & Samsung case, and that why the reference to Apple and whatever we have discussed so far in this thread

nzgeek

618 posts

Ultimate Geek

#678196 28-Aug-2012 14:22

Kiwipixter: I am sorry but the pinch-and-zoom idea in Minority Report has no commercial consequences, i.e. its not the reason why we pay to see the movie, nor did the movie producers invested $$ in researching that the pinch-and-zoom is good for that particular scene in the movie. Not a good example i am afraid.

I don't think that there's any commercial impact requirement on prior art. What matters is that the idea is not new.

If you could be granted patents for made-up technology shown on TV/movies, I would go and file a patent for medical diagnosis software that runs on a mobile device, using sensors (either built into the device or external) to measure the state of the patient. Sure, it's basically a Star Trek tricorder, but the tricorder didn't have any commercial consequences...

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#678199 28-Aug-2012 14:25

ibuksh:
tdgeek:
ibuksh: Well that all points back to something someone has already mentioned earlier in this thread and I would most happily reiterate.. the US Patent system is broken..

the patent officer sees its from Apple and says.."hey.. it must be their original idea, no one else could have thought of it before." and boom.. its patented to apple.

What would be more awesome is someone file a case against Apple for patenting ideas thats been around already for a long time and not their "original"

Patents laws right or wrong are not only/mainly used by Apple. All IT companies use them, heavily. Seems to me to be bias, correct me if I am wrong.

Of course all companies use them heavily.. thats not a doubt

But I suppose in this thread we were discussing how it stands with Apple & Samsung case, and that why the reference to Apple and whatever we have discussed so far in this thread

Fair enough. Most of the thread is anti Apple, whereas I am looking at it from a patent side. Not trying to flame, but I'd expect some responders to talk differently if Samsung took Apple to court and won.

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek

#678200 28-Aug-2012 14:26

tdgeek:
ibuksh:I have used apple and I have used samsung galaxy devices and they both have their own pros and cons because they have both implemented the ideas in their own ways..

I gather that pinch to zoom is an idea, I'm not sure what tech to provide that function falls under the patent. I'd certainly call it novel and patentable for that very reason. I would not call curved edges patentable, the issue there is more a passing off. But at the end of the day, the value Apple placed on these numbers of infringements was just $24 per device. Should have bought licences or got a legal judgement early on. ironically, in Stuff today, Samsung engineers have been working on designs to avoid the patent issues for a year now . many of these companies pay each other for various things, iOS has Google based default apps, they paid Google a lot for Maps, Google pays Apple a lot for Apple to use Google search in iOS, its actually quite fascinating. But I digress!

Either I don't understand the arrangement with apple/google in relation to maps, or your are mistaken and confusing patents.

case (1) Google have a product called Google maps. Apple don't have a maps product and wanted to use Google's product on their devices, so they entered into a commercial arrangement with google.

case (2) Apple patented an idea (maps on a phone). Samsung implemented the same general idea (maps on a phone), but differently (ie. different images/code/logic).

In one case Apple are free to make their own maps implementation and stop paying google (IIRC they are doing this now and a future iOS version will drop google maps in favour of some sort of apple maps). Had apple not entered into the arrangement with google, google would have been free to stop providing the services to apple phones if they so wished just like they are free to stop providing me with 'free' (advertising supported) gmail.

In the other case Samsung is not free to make their own implementation of the same idea.

nzgeek

618 posts

Ultimate Geek

#678202 28-Aug-2012 14:32

tdgeek: Patents laws right or wrong are not only/mainly used by Apple. All IT companies use them, heavily. Seems to me to be bias, correct me if I am wrong.

The complain against Apple is not that the patents are being used to litigate, but the way in which those patents are being used.

The majority of patent lawsuits end up with some sort of settlement, where both parties agree on damages and sort out a licensing deal. Quite often this ends up with cross-licensing, where each side can use the others patents.

Apple, on the other hand, don't seem to be interested in licensing deals. They are asking for an injunction that prevents the infringing products from being sold altogether. This is even for models where there is no look-and-feel infringement, only minor patents that don't have any real bearing on how the device operates (e.g. the bounce-back effect when you reach the end of a list).

There is some evidence that Apple tried to negotiate a licensing deal with Samsung back in 2010. However, they wanted a significant amount of money (US$24 per unit), which was more than the patents were worth. This didn't leave Samsung much choice but to head to court.

Samsung aren't the only company to have this done to them. HTC have had some imports temporarily banned in the US thanks to Apple, even when the functionality was built into the core Android OS and not because of something that HTC had added.

If Apple played the same game that the rest of the tech industry does, nobody would bat an eyelid. It's the injunction thing that's earning them a bad name in the eyes of so many people.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#678208 28-Aug-2012 14:44

blair003:
tdgeek:
ibuksh:I have used apple and I have used samsung galaxy devices and they both have their own pros and cons because they have both implemented the ideas in their own ways..

I gather that pinch to zoom is an idea, I'm not sure what tech to provide that function falls under the patent. I'd certainly call it novel and patentable for that very reason. I would not call curved edges patentable, the issue there is more a passing off. But at the end of the day, the value Apple placed on these numbers of infringements was just $24 per device. Should have bought licences or got a legal judgement early on. ironically, in Stuff today, Samsung engineers have been working on designs to avoid the patent issues for a year now . many of these companies pay each other for various things, iOS has Google based default apps, they paid Google a lot for Maps, Google pays Apple a lot for Apple to use Google search in iOS, its actually quite fascinating. But I digress!

Either I don't understand the arrangement with apple/google in relation to maps, or your are mistaken and confusing patents.

case (1) Google have a product called Google maps. Apple don't have a maps product and wanted to use Google's product on their devices, so they entered into a commercial arrangement with google.

case (2) Apple patented an idea (maps on a phone). Samsung implemented the same general idea (maps on a phone), but differently (ie. different images/code/logic).

In one case Apple are free to make their own maps implementation and stop paying google (IIRC they are doing this now and a future iOS version will drop google maps in favour of some sort of apple maps). Had apple not entered into the arrangement with google, google would have been free to stop providing the services to apple phones if they so wished just like they are free to stop providing me with 'free' (advertising supported) gmail.

In the other case Samsung is not free to make their own implementation of the same idea.

I didnt mean these examples are patents. My point was that all of these companies interract financially to a huge degree. Google pays Apple for them to use Search on iDevices. Apple pays Google so that the current Maps app, which uses Google mapping can be used on iDevices. Patents are not dissimilar in terms of paying to use others property.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#678210 28-Aug-2012 14:55

nzgeek:
tdgeek: Patents laws right or wrong are not only/mainly used by Apple. All IT companies use them, heavily. Seems to me to be bias, correct me if I am wrong.

The complain against Apple is not that the patents are being used to litigate, but the way in which those patents are being used.

The majority of patent lawsuits end up with some sort of settlement, where both parties agree on damages and sort out a licensing deal. Quite often this ends up with cross-licensing, where each side can use the others patents.

Apple, on the other hand, don't seem to be interested in licensing deals. They are asking for an injunction that prevents the infringing products from being sold altogether. This is even for models where there is no look-and-feel infringement, only minor patents that don't have any real bearing on how the device operates (e.g. the bounce-back effect when you reach the end of a list).

There is some evidence that Apple tried to negotiate a licensing deal with Samsung back in 2010. However, they wanted a significant amount of money (US$24 per unit), which was more than the patents were worth. This didn't leave Samsung much choice but to head to court.

Samsung aren't the only company to have this done to them. HTC have had some imports temporarily banned in the US thanks to Apple, even when the functionality was built into the core Android OS and not because of something that HTC had added.

If Apple played the same game that the rest of the tech industry does, nobody would bat an eyelid. It's the injunction thing that's earning them a bad name in the eyes of so many people.

$24 per device? Thats a lot? If its too much, which it isnt, redesign the IP issues. Samsung went ahead anyway. And it was wilfull, not a case of feeling it wasnt IP and making a mistake. Plus they have been working on redesigns of these IP issues for a year to avoid patent issues. Its fine if you wish to blame it all on Apple, but there are two sides. I feel Apple are over exuberant at times, and I feel Samsung is copy and hope for now. Both wrong, but Apple is merely defending its IP. If Samsung went after Apple, that means Samsung is bad? Nup. They are protecting their property.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

spacedog

482 posts

Ultimate Geek

#678213 28-Aug-2012 15:04

tdgeek:

......

Fair enough. Most of the thread is anti Apple, whereas I am looking at it from a patent side. Not trying to flame, but I'd expect some responders to talk differently if Samsung took Apple to court and won.

Yeah, there is no shortage of anti-Apple sentiment in this thread. Some of the comments also seem to be quite anti-US.

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#678214 28-Aug-2012 15:10

spacedog:
tdgeek:

......

Fair enough. Most of the thread is anti Apple, whereas I am looking at it from a patent side. Not trying to flame, but I'd expect some responders to talk differently if Samsung took Apple to court and won.

Yeah, there is no shortage of anti-Apple sentiment in this thread. Some of the comments also seem to be quite anti-US.

You think this thread is anti Apple, Google "I Hate Apple" and see what comes up :)

spacedog

482 posts

Ultimate Geek

#678218 28-Aug-2012 15:22

kiwitrc:
spacedog:
tdgeek:

......

Fair enough. Most of the thread is anti Apple, whereas I am looking at it from a patent side. Not trying to flame, but I'd expect some responders to talk differently if Samsung took Apple to court and won.

Yeah, there is no shortage of anti-Apple sentiment in this thread. Some of the comments also seem to be quite anti-US.

You think this thread is anti Apple, Google "I Hate Apple" and see what comes up :)

That would probably cause my browser to melt...

;)

nzgeek

618 posts

Ultimate Geek

#678219 28-Aug-2012 15:22

tdgeek: $24 per device? Thats a lot? If its too much, which it isnt, redesign the IP issues. Samsung went ahead anyway. And it was wilfull, not a case of feeling it wasnt IP and making a mistake. Plus they have been working on redesigns of these IP issues for a year to avoid patent issues. Its fine if you wish to blame it all on Apple, but there are two sides. I feel Apple are over exuberant at times, and I feel Samsung is copy and hope for now. Both wrong, but Apple is merely defending its IP. If Samsung went after Apple, that means Samsung is bad? Nup. They are protecting their property.

US$24 per device has a different impact for different products. On a phone that sells off-contract for US$600 it's not a lot. On a phone that sells for US$200 it's a huge impact.

Are Apple's patents really worth that much? The scroll-bounce thing was removed by Samsung after the first lot of complaints, and has since been removed by Google from the Android OS altogether. It's obviously not worth a lot. The pinch-to-zoom feature is hard to work around, and too handy to just leave out, but is it really worth more than a couple of dollars per unit?

Are the patents worth anything at all? They can't be if they're not valid, and based on Samsung's arguments, they obviously don't think so. The jury in this case didn't put much thought into the matter (as has been made clear by their statements to the press), so we'll have to wait for a judge to make the decision when the appeal is heard.

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#678223 28-Aug-2012 15:28

spacedog:
kiwitrc:
spacedog:
tdgeek:

......

Fair enough. Most of the thread is anti Apple, whereas I am looking at it from a patent side. Not trying to flame, but I'd expect some responders to talk differently if Samsung took Apple to court and won.

Yeah, there is no shortage of anti-Apple sentiment in this thread. Some of the comments also seem to be quite anti-US.

You think this thread is anti Apple, Google "I Hate Apple" and see what comes up :)

That would probably cause my browser to melt...

;)

If you are using Safari it wont come up at all.

Dingbatt

6756 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#678242 28-Aug-2012 16:08

kiwitrc:
spacedog:
kiwitrc:
spacedog:
tdgeek:

......

Fair enough. Most of the thread is anti Apple, whereas I am looking at it from a patent side. Not trying to flame, but I'd expect some responders to talk differently if Samsung took Apple to court and won.

Yeah, there is no shortage of anti-Apple sentiment in this thread. Some of the comments also seem to be quite anti-US.

You think this thread is anti Apple, Google "I Hate Apple" and see what comes up :)

That would probably cause my browser to melt...?

;)

If you are using Safari it wont come up at all.

But it will have taken your picture and sent it off to a discrete server (tinfoil hats......on!) :P

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Ragnor

8219 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#678289 28-Aug-2012 17:48

There are no patents in the fashion design industry nor do you see chef's patenting design of recipes in cooking.

Copyright and trademark law is strong enough and patent law is simply not needed.

I don't see how the patent system can be fixed to be applied effectively to design/software. The patent office will never be fast enough or thorough enough and will continue to award bad patents for obvious things that will be used as legal weapons to stifle competiton.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#678316 28-Aug-2012 19:06

nzgeek:
The majority of patent lawsuits end up with some sort of settlement, where both parties agree on damages and sort out a licensing deal. Quite often this ends up with cross-licensing, where each side can use the others patents.

Apple, on the other hand, don't seem to be interested in licensing deals..

Could not disagree more. Apple has gone to Samsung about the patents, offered licence arrangements. Not just once. Not interested. Therefore legal action followed. Apple and Google have arrangements going both ways, perhaps this is why there appears to be no desire to go after Google? Microsoft and Apple have arrangements. This is the IT industry, everyone overlaps quite a bit, so despite competition, sometimes aggressive, they often go about business, just as Samsung and Apple have re hardware.

Your quote above is correct, except in this case Samsung did not want it, but still used it. And evidence shows it was wilful, known, and a year ago they began designing around the patents.

I feel that the decision is correct, but the damages are too high, and if injunctions are added, thats also too much. But the over whelming factor for me is Samsung did what they did intentionally, thats where matters seem to have escalated. If there is an appeal, I expect that may reduce the issue,perhaps dependent on Samsungs actions between now and then.

Yes I use Apple, yes I've used Android, I have no issue with Android or Samsung. What comes back to me is the evidence withon Samsung that came out, re intention.

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ... | 21