Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news...1-billion-victory-over-samsung-in-patent-case
No matter which way you slice it, this is bad for us customers.
Apple Wins Patent Case Against Samsung and One Billion Dollars <insert Dr Evil Laugh>
- Thread starter Trancendental
- Start date
http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news...1-billion-victory-over-samsung-in-patent-case
No matter which way you slice it, this is bad for us customers.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']That jury was 
ing stupid. Some of the things they said didn't infringe actually do look a bit like Apple's products, others they said did infringe aren't even close. Check out groklaw.com for a ton of insight into the case.[/QUOTE]
No kidding. I heard the youngest member of the jury wore a Beatles tshirt on the final day. Way to be mature and impartial
Should we really expect that twelve folks pulled off the street can evaluate a case better then a trained patent evaluator? I know some folks who work in the patent arena and it's not for schlubs.
ing stupid. Some of the things they said didn't infringe actually do look a bit like Apple's products, others they said did infringe aren't even close. Check out groklaw.com for a ton of insight into the case.[/QUOTE]No kidding. I heard the youngest member of the jury wore a Beatles tshirt on the final day. Way to be mature and impartial
Should we really expect that twelve folks pulled off the street can evaluate a case better then a trained patent evaluator? I know some folks who work in the patent arena and it's not for schlubs.
speedracer
Banned
$130 million in infringement for the Epic 4g, a fat little keyboard slider that couldn't be mistaken for an iPhone by a blind person.
$800,000 in infringement for the Galaxy Tab 10.1, a device that screams iPad copycat in every nook and cranny and actually had an injunction filed against it by the judge presiding, who found the device to be so obviously copying that no reasonable jury could find otherwise.
lolwut
and zomgwtfbbq Apple's patents all upheld. Sure guy. They heard testimony from a guy that actually demo'd the '381 Apple patent to Apple before they had made (or patented, of course) the bounce back covered by '381 and still it was upheld.
This is why we can't have nice things. Burn the entire patent system to the ground and start over.
$800,000 in infringement for the Galaxy Tab 10.1, a device that screams iPad copycat in every nook and cranny and actually had an injunction filed against it by the judge presiding, who found the device to be so obviously copying that no reasonable jury could find otherwise.
lolwut
and zomgwtfbbq Apple's patents all upheld. Sure guy. They heard testimony from a guy that actually demo'd the '381 Apple patent to Apple before they had made (or patented, of course) the bounce back covered by '381 and still it was upheld.
Translation: "I looked at my TV and realized if I patented it I couldn't defend it because it's absurd to say there's no prior art. But I believe in patents, so I bent reality to make it what I wanted. Once I answered that question as yes, it meant I had a mental justification for fully disobeying the law we were sworn to uphold with no cognitive dissonance. Or, it's right because I want it to be right."
This is why we can't have nice things. Burn the entire patent system to the ground and start over.
n8rockerasu
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 52 (100%)
Yeah, this is utter bullshit. "OMG...it's a rectangle. Is that an iPhone???" Unless the jury is made up of everybody's grandmother, I don't know how anybody could buy into that garbage. How can people not realize that when a device is made for media content, most specifically video, it's only logical for it to take on the shape of that media. For that matter, why don't Sony and Panasonic sue Apple for making devices that look like miniature TVs. Clearly, it's the same thing.
Could they not possibly think that any reference to other phones casually being called "iPhones" is because they're so popular it's just become a generic term for a smartphone? It's like Band-Aid or Kleenex. You don't seeing Kleenex suing the other manufacturers of "facial tissues". The fact that a court would uphold this truly shows how screwed up this shitty country is. They're basically allowing Apple to act like the douchebags you see on Xbox Live. "I might not be playing fair...but at least I WON!"
Could they not possibly think that any reference to other phones casually being called "iPhones" is because they're so popular it's just become a generic term for a smartphone? It's like Band-Aid or Kleenex. You don't see
ing Kleenex suing the other manufacturers of "facial tissues". The fact that a court would uphold this truly shows how screwed up this shitty country is. They're basically allowing Apple to act like the douchebags you see on Xbox Live. "I might not be playing fair...but at least I WON!" 
ced
CAGiversary!
Whelp, time to get used to texting on a numeric key pad again unless you have an iPhone. The decision gives Apple the opportunity to create a monopoly on the smartphone industry through litigation since the argument that "All smartphones are iPhones" has apparenly been rendered valid.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='speedracer']$130 million in infringement for the Epic 4g, a fat little keyboard slider that couldn't be mistaken for an iPhone by a blind person.
$800,000 in infringement for the Galaxy Tab 10.1, a device that screams iPad copycat in every nook and cranny and actually had an injunction filed against it by the judge presiding, who found the device to be so obviously copying that no reasonable jury could find otherwise.
lolwut
and zomgwtfbbq Apple's patents all upheld. Sure guy. They heard testimony from a guy that actually demo'd the '381 Apple patent to Apple before they had made (or patented, of course) the bounce back covered by '381 and still it was upheld.
Translation: "I looked at my TV and realized if I patented it I couldn't defend it because it's absurd to say there's no prior art. But I believe in patents, so I bent reality to make it what I wanted. Once I answered that question as yes, it meant I had a mental justification for fully disobeying the law we were sworn to uphold with no cognitive dissonance. Or, it's right because I want it to be right."
This is why we can't have nice things. Burn the entire patent system to the ground and start over.[/QUOTE]
Burn it to the ground and replace it with nothing.
$800,000 in infringement for the Galaxy Tab 10.1, a device that screams iPad copycat in every nook and cranny and actually had an injunction filed against it by the judge presiding, who found the device to be so obviously copying that no reasonable jury could find otherwise.
lolwut
and zomgwtfbbq Apple's patents all upheld. Sure guy. They heard testimony from a guy that actually demo'd the '381 Apple patent to Apple before they had made (or patented, of course) the bounce back covered by '381 and still it was upheld.
Translation: "I looked at my TV and realized if I patented it I couldn't defend it because it's absurd to say there's no prior art. But I believe in patents, so I bent reality to make it what I wanted. Once I answered that question as yes, it meant I had a mental justification for fully disobeying the law we were sworn to uphold with no cognitive dissonance. Or, it's right because I want it to be right."
This is why we can't have nice things. Burn the entire patent system to the ground and start over.[/QUOTE]
Burn it to the ground and replace it with nothing.
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Burn it to the ground and replace it with nothing.[/QUOTE]
As long as people innovate there will always be a need for the law to protect their intellectual property. Patent law under its present construction has many, many flaws but in this instance it was a jury of our peers that failed us. Not the law.
Let's use pharma as an example of how the world might operate without patent law. A small biotech company discovers a new drug and does all the leg work to bring the drug to market. Thus, having incured significant costs. What then? There is nothing stopping J&J or Merck from simply copying their drug and using their muscle to sway the market in their favor. All that hard work goes down the drain with nothing to show for it. The little guy loses and so does the consumer. So how would this system create a better world?
As long as people innovate there will always be a need for the law to protect their intellectual property. Patent law under its present construction has many, many flaws but in this instance it was a jury of our peers that failed us. Not the law.
Let's use pharma as an example of how the world might operate without patent law. A small biotech company discovers a new drug and does all the leg work to bring the drug to market. Thus, having incured significant costs. What then? There is nothing stopping J&J or Merck from simply copying their drug and using their muscle to sway the market in their favor. All that hard work goes down the drain with nothing to show for it. The little guy loses and so does the consumer. So how would this system create a better world?
[quote name='kill3r7']As long as people innovate there will always be a need for the law to protect their intellectual property. Patent law under its present construction has many, many flaws but in this instance it was a jury of our peers that failed us. Not the law.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it just needs reform in how cases are tried etc.
There's not much incentive to invent or create if we don't have strong patent and copyright laws protecting people's intellectual property.
Especially since a lot of inventions come from individuals and small start ups risking a lot of their own money in developing their ideas and creating products. No incentive to do that if they're not ensured sole right to profit off their creations.
But we also can't have juries making rulings like this, or allow patenting things like basic ways of interacting with devices (pinch zooming etc.), or copyright laws that infringe on legitimate owners fair use rights to things they buy or so on.
We need to find happy medium that protects intellectual property rights, while not stifling competition or screwing over legitimate consumers.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it just needs reform in how cases are tried etc.
There's not much incentive to invent or create if we don't have strong patent and copyright laws protecting people's intellectual property.
Especially since a lot of inventions come from individuals and small start ups risking a lot of their own money in developing their ideas and creating products. No incentive to do that if they're not ensured sole right to profit off their creations.
But we also can't have juries making rulings like this, or allow patenting things like basic ways of interacting with devices (pinch zooming etc.), or copyright laws that infringe on legitimate owners fair use rights to things they buy or so on.
We need to find happy medium that protects intellectual property rights, while not stifling competition or screwing over legitimate consumers.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, it just needs reform in how cases are tried etc.
There's not much incentive to invent or create if we don't have strong patent and copyright laws protecting people's intellectual property.
Especially since a lot of inventions come from individuals and small start ups risking a lot of their own money in developing their ideas and creating products. No incentive to do that if they're not ensured sole right to profit off their creations.
But we also can't have juries making rulings like this, or allow patenting things like basic ways of interacting with devices (pinch zooming etc.), or copyright laws that infringe on legitimate owners fair use rights to things they buy or so on.
We need to find happy medium that protects intellectual property rights, while not stifling competition or screwing over legitimate consumers.[/QUOTE]
Ditto. There is no doubt it needs to be fixed but the issues are not as black and white as people tend to make them.
There's not much incentive to invent or create if we don't have strong patent and copyright laws protecting people's intellectual property.
Especially since a lot of inventions come from individuals and small start ups risking a lot of their own money in developing their ideas and creating products. No incentive to do that if they're not ensured sole right to profit off their creations.
But we also can't have juries making rulings like this, or allow patenting things like basic ways of interacting with devices (pinch zooming etc.), or copyright laws that infringe on legitimate owners fair use rights to things they buy or so on.
We need to find happy medium that protects intellectual property rights, while not stifling competition or screwing over legitimate consumers.[/QUOTE]
Ditto. There is no doubt it needs to be fixed but the issues are not as black and white as people tend to make them.
Part of what's missing is that Samsung is now the largest phone manufacturer in the world, not to mention Apple's biggest competitor for the markets it wants. Samsung also has the dubious honor of being the largest manufacturer of Android phones as well, which happens to be more widespread than iOS. This isn't just about Samsung, but also a proxy war against Google. Apple had some fun with Nokia and Motorola too, but they're non-issues compared to Samsung.
elessar123
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 196 (100%)
[quote name='kill3r7']Patent law under its present construction has many, many flaws but in this instance it was a jury of our peers that failed us. Not the law.[/QUOTE]
I just got a mental image of Beemo and a bunch of other electronic devices sitting in the jury box.
I just got a mental image of Beemo and a bunch of other electronic devices sitting in the jury box.
4thHorseman
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 91 (100%)
Least Tokyo seems to get it and awarded the win to Samsung in Apple's patent lawsuit there.
And Samsung seems pissed off after the US lost, and is threatening to sue Apple if they use LET/4G in their next phone. And since Apple had it in the latest iPad, there's a good chance it will make it's way to the next iPhone.
http://www.techradar.com/news/phone...ng-well-sue-apple-over-lte-technology-1094279
Looks like we may want to get some popcorn ready...
And Samsung seems pissed off after the US lost, and is threatening to sue Apple if they use LET/4G in their next phone. And since Apple had it in the latest iPad, there's a good chance it will make it's way to the next iPhone.
http://www.techradar.com/news/phone...ng-well-sue-apple-over-lte-technology-1094279
Looks like we may want to get some popcorn ready...
[quote name='dohdough']Part of what's missing is that Samsung is now the largest phone manufacturer in the world, not to mention Apple's biggest competitor for the markets it wants. Samsung also has the dubious honor of being the largest manufacturer of Android phones as well, which happens to be more widespread than iOS. This isn't just about Samsung, but also a proxy war against Google. Apple had some fun with Nokia and Motorola too, but they're non-issues compared to Samsung.[/QUOTE]
Samsung also makes a good number of the parts that make up an iphone.:lol:
Samsung also makes a good number of the parts that make up an iphone.:lol:
bread's done