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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 21

6741 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#677475 27-Aug-2012 10:44

So I guess since Apple are so precious about gestures, they will be removing the pulldown notification bar on all future iOS versions?
I don't have too much of a problem with the 'Trade Dress' argument, but I do with software and gestures. Does the foregoing mean that facial recognition can be incorporated in iOS. What about NFC applications and how we interact. As has been pointed out, the loss is to innovation and advancement.
If they wish to wake the sleeping giant, so be it. But if Google put the message "Did you mean smartphone" at the top of any search results for "iphone", particularly in the coming weeks, who could blame them?

Edit: And Apple has obviously eschewed ever using widgets or live tiles?

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

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

spacedog

482 posts

Ultimate Geek

#677478 27-Aug-2012 10:46

ibuksh: its just wierd how samsung had similar looking phones in design way before the 1st iphone and still gets slapped with a fine/ban

This picture would suggest the contrary to what you say:

samsung-apple

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek

#677481 27-Aug-2012 10:53

He might mean the F700 for example:

ibuksh

524 posts

Ultimate Geek

#677483 27-Aug-2012 10:54

spacedog:
ibuksh: its just wierd how samsung had similar looking phones in design way before the 1st iphone and still gets slapped with a fine/ban

This picture would suggest the contrary to what you say:

Just read through this article from start to finish and you might get an idea of what I meant
http://phandroid.com/2012/07/31/pre-iphone-design-concepts-add-weight-to-samsungs-defense-in-patent-trial/

spacedog

482 posts

Ultimate Geek

#677503 27-Aug-2012 11:07

yeah, those are good examples of how the case/body styling argument was pretty weak (i.e. the patenting of a rectangular device with rounded corners).

However, the UI between the devices is pretty dramatically different. I noticed that the Samsung bar phones in the phandroid article never show the UI, just the body styling.

Did the jury find in favour of the rectangular-device-with-rounded corners infringement claim? From what I have read it seems that pinch-to-zoom and bounce-back were the main infringements cited in the jury verdict?

ibuksh

524 posts

Ultimate Geek

#677505 27-Aug-2012 11:09

yeah but $1 billion for those few features seems quite strong aye..

tdgeek

29633 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#677509 27-Aug-2012 11:14

Dingbatt: So I guess since Apple are so precious about gestures, they will be removing the pulldown notification bar on all future iOS versions?
I don't have too much of a problem with the 'Trade Dress' argument, but I do with software and gestures. Does the foregoing mean that facial recognition can be incorporated in iOS. What about NFC applications and how we interact. As has been pointed out, the loss is to innovation and advancement.
If they wish to wake the sleeping giant, so be it. But if Google put the message "Did you mean smartphone" at the top of any search results for "iphone", particularly in the coming weeks, who could blame them?

Edit: And Apple has obviously eschewed ever using widgets or live tiles?

If they wished to, and the patent was held by another company, they can pay the patent agreement with that company and use that feature. Microsoft and Apple have a recent such agreemen, although I am unsure what it covered. I believe Samsung was offered, but declined.

Some comments seem to suggest that if you get a patent you stop all others using it. If a company developed a function, spent resources on R+D, they get a reward by being first on market. To stop free copying, a patent allows them to recover the R+D costs, and get a reward for innnovation. However, I do feel that in IT and particularly smartphones, these patents should be brief, perhaps 2 to 3 years. Also, I think the patent fees are low per device. I cannot support that, but I recall something along those lines in the last year or so. Comments about red Ferraris, etc are incorrect, its not that silly

spacedog

482 posts

Ultimate Geek

#677512 27-Aug-2012 11:19

ibuksh: yeah but $1 billion for those few features seems quite strong aye..

Some have argued that a $1 billion fine for copying Apple's design to become the #2 most profitable mobile company in the world was actually still a good strategy/bet. Samsung had something like $6b in profits on the S3? And they are not exactly a poor company with something like $21b in cash

ibuksh

524 posts

Ultimate Geek

#677513 27-Aug-2012 11:22

spacedog:
ibuksh: yeah but $1 billion for those few features seems quite strong aye..

Some have argued that a $1 billion fine for copying Apple's design to become the #2 most profitable mobile company in the world was actually still a good strategy/bet. Samsung had something like $6b in profits on the S3? And they are not exactly a poor company with something like $21b in cash

They should get the number of devices they sold and pay licence for using the feature per device sold.. I seriously doubt it would still amount to 10 digit figure

spacedog

482 posts

Ultimate Geek

#677519 27-Aug-2012 11:33

ibuksh:
spacedog:
ibuksh: yeah but $1 billion for those few features seems quite strong aye..

Some have argued that a $1 billion fine for copying Apple's design to become the #2 most profitable mobile company in the world was actually still a good strategy/bet. Samsung had something like $6b in profits on the S3? And they are not exactly a poor company with something like $21b in cash

They should get the number of devices they sold and pay licence for using the feature per device sold.. I seriously doubt it would still amount to 10 digit figure

Yeah, well, that was the bad bet part by Samsung. Just read an article that did that very math. If Samsung had agreed to the licence terms Apple offered them in the beginning, it would have amounted to $545 million.

Samsung gambled....and lost.

ibuksh

524 posts

Ultimate Geek

#677524 27-Aug-2012 11:37

I wonder how much Apple were asking for per feature licence for each device..

Also you win some and you lose some.. So yeah.. Samsung gambled and lost.. but I doubt they would give up that easy..

there'd be appeals and cases following all this.. its gonna take a long long time..

spacedog

482 posts

Ultimate Geek

#677540 27-Aug-2012 11:56

ibuksh: I wonder how much Apple were asking for per feature licence for each device..

Also you win some and you lose some.. So yeah.. Samsung gambled and lost.. but I doubt they would give up that easy..

there'd be appeals and cases following all this.. its gonna take a long long time..

Apple offered $24/license and Samsung rejected it.

And yes, this will be going on for a long time unless they decide to settle

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek

#677543 27-Aug-2012 12:06

if you read the groklaw article there is a lot of information highlighting inconsistencies thru the jury process of the trial. Most notably, and a fair summary for me, was this, (note is was recorded BEFORE the verdict was announced):

"This case is unmanageable for a jury," Robin Feldman, an intellectual property professor at the University of California Hastings Law School, said before the verdict. "There are more than 100 pages of jury instructions. I don't give that much reading to my law students. They can't possible digest it."

"The trial is evidence of a patent system that is out of control," Feldman said. "No matter what happens in this trial, I think people will need to step back and ask whether we've gone too far in the intellectual property system."

ibuksh

524 posts

Ultimate Geek

#677546 27-Aug-2012 12:13

oxnsox: if you read the groklaw article there is a lot of information highlighting inconsistencies thru the jury process of the trial. Most notably, and a fair summary for me, was this, (note is was recorded BEFORE the verdict was announced):

"This case is unmanageable for a jury," Robin Feldman, an intellectual property professor at the University of California Hastings Law School, said before the verdict. "There are more than 100 pages of jury instructions. I don't give that much reading to my law students. They can't possible digest it."

"The trial is evidence of a patent system that is out of control," Feldman said. "No matter what happens in this trial, I think people will need to step back and ask whether we've gone too far in the intellectual property system."

That being the scenario.. the jury took relatively small amount of time to digest the 100 pages and deliberate on the evidence to come up with a verdict..

I was expecting the jury to take atleast a few weeks if not any more

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek

#677558 27-Aug-2012 12:24

And that's one of the issues the case has highlighted.

It seems the Jury Foreman 'led' (my term) the jury to answer the over 500 questions rather quickly, after regaling them with his view of how he would protect his patent. Once he'd done that the process sped up considerably, certainly with less debate. (perhaps because the jury had already decided after day 1 that Samsung was in the wrong)

Ideally each question should have been run past the 'instructions', but it seems that this was not the case.

A number of lawyers have suggested it would have taken them a number of days to properly consider the answers against the document.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 21