Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Forum & Miscellaneous | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2012 · Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit

  
 
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit


sorpa wrote:
It was expected indeed.
I'll never understand what a jury has to do in a civil matter. Let alone in an intellectual property matter where the file is filled up with technical details.
Fortunately, Quebec civil code doesn't have that institution.


Unfortunately the options are limited in the US. I for one will never buy any Apple product, period. Fortunately I have the products I need for about another year or so. Presumably by then there will be new alternatives that do not infringe on some of the nonsense patents.

EBH



Aug 31, 2012 at 09:32 PM
robertjm
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit


Interesting observation as the Japanese and Korean courts ruled in favor of Samsung. Not sure what the status of the European suits are.

EB-1 wrote:
Well it was an American court, so that is expected.

EBH




Aug 31, 2012 at 10:52 PM
borderlight
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit


Unfortunately the options are limited in the US. I for one will never buy any Apple product, period. Fortunately I have the products I need for about another year or so. Presumably by then there will be new alternatives that do not infringe on some of the nonsense patents.


I'm sure an emerging company will step up and reinvent the (cell phone) wheel before your product needs expire in the next year.

BTW: You don't get a patent or copyright for "nonsense". I am surprised by those who question the justice system as in applies to the business sector, but are in agreement with the civil court system -- both essentially the same thing and equal as outlined in the Constitution (6th Amendment).



Sep 01, 2012 at 10:23 AM
robertjm
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit


I do question what the patent and trademark systems have become when a company, who has somethiing expiring gets an extension because they change the look of a pill from something with two gold stripes to something with three gold stripes. (I can't remember who it was, but that's what happened about five years ago).

One of the things that Apple won on in the US was the trade dress (look) of the back of the iPhone vs. the Samsung phone. About the only thing that looked the same was the fact the phone was white.

Robert

borderlight wrote:



Sep 01, 2012 at 10:40 AM
borderlight
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit


One of the things that Apple won on in the US was the trade dress (look) of the back of the iPhone vs. the Samsung phone. About the only thing that looked the same was the fact the phone was white.

I agree that some of the design features, the look, of the iPhone might have been a stretch from our perspective or those of the general public, but current patent laws are specific. Questioning the patent office rules holds no more sway than disagreeing with a verdict in a civil trial. It's still patent law, like it or not. The white iPhone required a bit more technology than just painting it white.

http://allthingsd.com/20110427/apples-jobs-and-schiller-on-why-making-the-white-iphone-was-so-darn-tough/



Sep 01, 2012 at 11:37 AM
robertjm
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit


The thing is the Trade Dress infringement was only one of the patents they won on, and it was based ONLY on what it looked like. It had nothing to do with Bounce Back, or any of the other patents they were suing on.

Placement of the camera lens/flash are different. any logo is certainly different. One of the tech podcasts I watch had a photo of both backs together and there shouldn't have been any question as to which phone was which.

borderlight wrote:
I agree that some of the design features, the look, of the iPhone might have been a stretch from our perspective or those of the general public, but current patent laws are specific. Questioning the patent office rules holds no more sway than disagreeing with a verdict in a civil trial. It's still patent law, like it or not. The white iPhone required a bit more technology than just painting it white.

http://allthingsd.com/20110427/apples-jobs-and-schiller-on-why-making-the-white-iphone-was-so-darn-tough/




Sep 01, 2012 at 11:47 AM
borderlight
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit


The thing is the Trade Dress infringement was only one of the patents they won on, and it was based ONLY on what it looked like.

Not according to the links below. It looks like Apple won 6 of the 7 patent infringements in the US. The pending award is $1 Billion. In Japan Apple lost one case of infringement. That will cost Apple $1.3 Million....big difference. The link below explains exactly what patent infringements were violated. The NY Times report gives a larger perspective of the entire case and it's implications.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/apple-samsung-lawsuit-verdict_n_1829268.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/technology/in-japan-a-setback-for-apples-patent-fight.html



Sep 01, 2012 at 12:25 PM
robertjm
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit


Thanks for the links. I'll read them, and then compare them to what TWiT said, to see if I misunderstood something. Certainly not above admitting a mistake if I didn't get it right the first time.


Sep 01, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Johnny B Goode
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit


From the huffington post link. Apple won on the following patents:

Patent 381 covers smartphone's ability to drag documents, rotate by twisting, and zoom in by pitching (this includes the "bounce back" feature).

Patent 915 covers how we scroll through documents using one finger.

patent 163 covers the tap-to-zoom functionality found in Google Maps and other map apps.

Patents 667 and 087 cover the exterior of the iPhone. Somehow, Apple was able to patent and successfully defend a claim to phone that are rectangular with rounded edges and rounded backs.

--

One of the things that screwed samsung over was referencing the iphone in internal emails during the design phase. That being said, how else can someone zoom conveniently without pinching, scroll without dragging? Imagine if Canon sued Tamron because their focus rings rotated in the same direction, or the aperture blades made similar shapes. Sounds silly now because of the standard that's been set. If we just now discovered how to make cameras would this be a dependable patent? Maybe that's too different of a comparison, maybe not though.

With regards to the drug companies....
Typically with pharmaceutical patents the companies have 7 years (from what I remember) to be the sole distributor of the "formula". After those 7 years the formula is able to be used as a generic prescription by other companies. To keep the patent the drug company needs to find a new use for the drug separate from the original. I haven't read anything about a company changing the appearance to get an extension.



Sep 04, 2012 at 07:07 AM
robertjm
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit


Didn't Tamron license the rights to use the EOS lens mount from Canon? I'd hazard a guess if Canon actually had a patent on focus rotation then they'd have paid for licensing on that too.

Johnny B Goode wrote:
...One of the things that screwed samsung over was referencing the iphone in internal emails during the design phase. That being said, how else can someone zoom conveniently without pinching, scroll without dragging? Imagine if Canon sued Tamron because their focus rings rotated in the same direction, or the aperture blades made similar shapes. Sounds silly now because of the standard that's been set. If we just now discovered how to make cameras would this be a dependable patent? Maybe that's too different of a comparison, maybe not though...




Sep 04, 2012 at 11:43 AM
DanBrown
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit


Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert) had an interesting perspective related to this topic in a recent blog entry entitled "When Ideas become Gold."


Sep 04, 2012 at 12:31 PM
DanBrown
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit


Johnny B Goode wrote:
With regards to the drug companies....
Typically with pharmaceutical patents the companies have 7 years (from what I remember) to be the sole distributor of the "formula".


It's actually 20 years. But given that the patent is applied for early in the development process, even before clinical trials begin, the "practical" length of patent is usually between 7 and 12 years. The situation is further complicated by the FDA's exclusivity period which awards companies with orphan drugs, pediatric drugs, novel chemical entities, etc. A good discussion of these aspects in on the FDA's web site.



Sep 04, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Johnny B Goode
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit


DanBrown wrote:
It's actually 20 years. web site.


I thought I read something in 2011 it was changed to 7 years. Could be mistaken, will read the link when I get home tonight.



Sep 04, 2012 at 02:16 PM
Sarsfield
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit


Xerox should sue Apple for the robbery of it's GUI that they stole and used in ALL Macintoshes since the LISA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface

What goes around will eventually come around for Apple.



Sep 04, 2012 at 07:01 PM
robertjm
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit


But did they ACTUALLY patent it? Xerox Parc was a think that had so many ideas come out of it, it's staggering. Unfortunately for Xerox they pretty much didn't follow up on them.

Sarsfield wrote:
Xerox should sue Apple for the robbery of it's GUI that they stole and used in ALL Macintoshes since the LISA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface

What goes around will eventually come around for Apple.




Sep 04, 2012 at 07:12 PM
borderlight
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit


I think Robert is right. Xerox had no patent rights to sue. From those early GUI ideas, Apple was able to expand and create new systems way beyond Xerox's in-house experiments. Microsoft benefitted too. Everything evolves. Let the courts settle the corporate lawsuits. It would be easier for some people on FM to just admit they hate Apple (God knows why) instead of acting like personal victims of products they don't purchase.




Sep 04, 2012 at 10:49 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Forum & Miscellaneous | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.