Samsung getting thumped in court by Apple

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Anyone who's read my posts in the past knows how I feel about this. And all it's done is make me lose faith in our court system. Honestly, what do you think would be the situation today if a century ago a single company had patented "A motorized, self propelled coach with 4 wheels". This really is the same kind of things. The jury is also clearly ignoring abundant prior art. This whole thing makes me sick. Well I will never be buying an iphone. I'll keep my Galaxy S2 forever if that's what I have to do.



Cause Samsung is a great company?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/business/worldbusiness/06cnd-samsung.html

http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News/Story/A1Story20110610-283339.html

http://news.techeye.net/business/south-korea-makes-example-of-samsung-corruption


No billion dollar company is clean. Not even the Vatican!!!

Samsung went out of their way to make their phone look and act like the iPhone. That's a fact. That's why the jury ruled the way they did.

Your example of a company owning the rights of the car is not the same. Four wheels is NEEDED. A windshield is NEEDED. A motor is NEEDED.

Apple is not looking for compensation from Samsung because they used a touch screen. Because they used a CPU. Because they have a power button.

They sued Samsung because Samsung built their phone to look just like and act like the iPhone. Because Samsung incorporated pinch to zoom. Rubber banding. Those thing are not NEEDED to build a smart phone. They are features that apple spent time on polishing and incorporating into their product to set themselves apart from the competition. Only the have Samsung reverse engineer it and build a phone just like it.

Taking ideas and concepts is one thing. Making your phone look and work like just like your competion serves no use to the public.

This ruling is going to be good for consumers. It's going to push new and better innovation that sets every company apart from each other.



That's like saying that a car having a CD player/USB integration can be patented because it's "Not NEEEDED" The first company to put them in didn't try to patent them, and sue all other manufacturers that have since put it in. It's the same thing.

This ruling is NOT going to be good for the consumer. These patents are for things that just make sense on a smartphone. According to apple, swiping your finger on a screen to unlock it, no matter how it works, is stealing from them. Same thing for pinch to zoom. [censored], I had a samsung dumb phone with a touchscreen a few years before the iphone, that had pinch to zoom. So you are telling me that pinch to zoom should be allowed to be patented? Come on now.

All this is going to do is mean that Samsungs products in the US are going to be banned from sale. That is good for the consumer how? Less choice. Windows phone, blackberry, or iphone. Sounds like a plan to me.


I was going to type out a retort, but a fellow user already beat me to it. Could not of said it better myself.





Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Originally Posted By: Nick R

That's like saying that a car having a CD player/USB integration can be patented because it's "Not NEEEDED" The first company to put them in didn't try to patent them, and sue all other manufacturers that have since put it in. It's the same thing.

This ruling is NOT going to be good for the consumer. These patents are for things that just make sense on a smartphone.


Putting a CD player and USB port in a car IS patented. Both the CD player and USB host adapter are patented by Sony/Philips and IBM, respectively. To put them in a car, the device manufacturer (supplier providing the part) must license the technology.

Simply because something "just makes sense" doesn't make it public domain, able to be used anywhere, by anyone. You want to talk about stifling innovation. Imagine a world where anybody who develops anything has no way to protect all that work and it will immediately be stolen and produced by a competitor. What incentive is there to invent anymore?


Ding Ding Ding Ding!

Nick, your examples are not making any sense. I sorry.

Pinch to zoom is NOT a normal way of zooming. The way WE ALL zoomed was pressing the little + and - symbols. Apple pantented pinch to zoom when they developed it for their touch screens. Same with swipe to unlock. It seems like its the best way to unlock a smart phone since it is so simple and easy. That's why they pantented it!!!!!!! That's the whole reason to pantent something.

This is a win for consumers. Samsung has money. They have a R&D department. I'm sure they can develop very good technology that can compete against the iPhone. And not mirror it.

If you can't look at what Samsung put out after the IPhone and admit they willfully copied it, then you must be a Samsung fan boy!!
smile.gif


That's cool.

We all like what we like.
 
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
... then you must be a Samsung fan boy!!
smile.gif


That's cool.

We all like what we like.

I'm a Samsung fanboy. I love my front loader washer and dryer
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: mpvue
I'm a Samsung fanboy. I love my front loader washer and dryer
smile.gif


Just as long as they don't utilize things like pinch-to-zoom or swipe-to-unlock.
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Popinski
Screw both companies. I'll stick to Motorola, Nokia, LG or HTC.

Apple already sued and won against HTC. The other three sued Apple. One big happy family.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Popinski
Screw both companies. I'll stick to Motorola, Nokia, LG or HTC.

Apple already sued and won against HTC. The other three sued Apple. One big happy family.


NO ONE IS SAFE. WWII: Technology edition.
 
Samsung clearly copied the iphone. Even as an android user, I can admit this because one only has to look at the Galaxy S and compare it to the iPhone. So under the current law, I think Samsung got what it deserved.

However, I think the current patent system is broken. There is too much prior art being patented. Not surprising considering the patent office is overwhelmed. Patenting is a double edged sword. The economic rationale is you grant monopoly power (a bad) in order to protect large R&D investments (a good). So you try to balance the too effects.

Richard Posner one of the leading judges and legal scholars says currently, the technology industry is a mess because the "large" R&D part is rarely satisfied for most of the innovations. So all you are really is granting monopoly power legally and the tech companies are playing the game. This is why a lot of these companies spend three to five times more on marketing and lawyers than they do on R&D. When the trajectory is increasing marketing and lawyer fees rather than R&D, there is something seriously wrong with the "innovation" aspect of the system. Companies chase margins not innovation. In the long run, this means higher prices for consumers and slower pace of innovation.

This is why the open source community hates the patent to innovate system. It is insular and ultimately stifles rather than induce innovation.
 
'stifles innovation'... it seems that companies copy Apple not the other way round.
Samsung copied Apple. Cheaper to copy than to innovate.
 
Yes Samsung did as I already said in my first sentence. That is the short term picture. Im talking about the long run picture in the rest of my post. It won't be good for consumers.

Doesn't much matter to me personally. If they don't reform the system, I'll just hang on to my Apple stock while using lower margin android products. The supply of apple fanboys cheering on Apple to raise margins on them is endless. Its puzzling to me but I won't argue with the high stock price.
 
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
'stifles innovation'... it seems that companies copy Apple not the other way round.
Samsung copied Apple. Cheaper to copy than to innovate.


Only thing is, that's not entirely true. Much of Apple's tech has been copied from other sources, albeit less obscure ones. They seem to be good at popularizing tech that other companies have innovated. It seems to me that they all tend to copy from each other to a large degree.
 
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
'stifles innovation'... it seems that companies copy Apple not the other way round.
Samsung copied Apple. Cheaper to copy than to innovate.


Only thing is, that's not entirely true. Much of Apple's tech has been copied from other sources, albeit less obscure ones. They seem to be good at popularizing tech that other companies have innovated. It seems to me that they all tend to copy from each other to a large degree.


It's true that the base and main concepts of many of Apple's big selling products were started and developed by other companies.

But Apple takes that concept and they are the ones that innovate it and make it into something the public loves.

Apple innovates and puts out the iPod. Was it the first mp3 player? No. But it was the first one to take the world by storm and it prompted a revolution in the music industry.

Apple innovates and puts out the iPhone. Was it the first touch screen phone? No. But it was the first one to take the world by storm and it prompted a revolution in the cell phone industry.

Apple innovates and puts out the IPad. Was it the first tablet computer? No. Ect............
 
This is true. Apple is brilliant at making and marketing consumer products. They are like a gourmet chef who didn't produce the ingredients but can put it together in a way that hits the sweet spot of the population distribution. This is the greatest corporation the world has ever seen.

However if other companies try to mimic Apple by reducing basic research, and ramping up marketing and design, this is not a good thing long term. The system needs to change reward more R&D expenditures and less marketing innovation.
 
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Anyone who's read my posts in the past knows how I feel about this. And all it's done is make me lose faith in our court system. Honestly, what do you think would be the situation today if a century ago a single company had patented "A motorized, self propelled coach with 4 wheels". This really is the same kind of things. The jury is also clearly ignoring abundant prior art. This whole thing makes me sick. Well I will never be buying an iphone. I'll keep my Galaxy S2 forever if that's what I have to do.



Cause Samsung is a great company?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/business/worldbusiness/06cnd-samsung.html

http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News/Story/A1Story20110610-283339.html

http://news.techeye.net/business/south-korea-makes-example-of-samsung-corruption


No billion dollar company is clean. Not even the Vatican!!!

Samsung went out of their way to make their phone look and act like the iPhone. That's a fact. That's why the jury ruled the way they did.

Your example of a company owning the rights of the car is not the same. Four wheels is NEEDED. A windshield is NEEDED. A motor is NEEDED.

Apple is not looking for compensation from Samsung because they used a touch screen. Because they used a CPU. Because they have a power button.

They sued Samsung because Samsung built their phone to look just like and act like the iPhone. Because Samsung incorporated pinch to zoom. Rubber banding. Those thing are not NEEDED to build a smart phone. They are features that apple spent time on polishing and incorporating into their product to set themselves apart from the competition. Only the have Samsung reverse engineer it and build a phone just like it.

Taking ideas and concepts is one thing. Making your phone look and work like just like your competion serves no use to the public.

This ruling is going to be good for consumers. It's going to push new and better innovation that sets every company apart from each other.



That's like saying that a car having a CD player/USB integration can be patented because it's "Not NEEEDED" The first company to put them in didn't try to patent them, and sue all other manufacturers that have since put it in. It's the same thing.

This ruling is NOT going to be good for the consumer. These patents are for things that just make sense on a smartphone. According to apple, swiping your finger on a screen to unlock it, no matter how it works, is stealing from them. Same thing for pinch to zoom. [censored], I had a samsung dumb phone with a touchscreen a few years before the iphone, that had pinch to zoom. So you are telling me that pinch to zoom should be allowed to be patented? Come on now.

All this is going to do is mean that Samsungs products in the US are going to be banned from sale. That is good for the consumer how? Less choice. Windows phone, blackberry, or iphone. Sounds like a plan to me.


I was going to type out a retort, but a fellow user already beat me to it. Could not of said it better myself.





Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Originally Posted By: Nick R

That's like saying that a car having a CD player/USB integration can be patented because it's "Not NEEEDED" The first company to put them in didn't try to patent them, and sue all other manufacturers that have since put it in. It's the same thing.

This ruling is NOT going to be good for the consumer. These patents are for things that just make sense on a smartphone.


Putting a CD player and USB port in a car IS patented. Both the CD player and USB host adapter are patented by Sony/Philips and IBM, respectively. To put them in a car, the device manufacturer (supplier providing the part) must license the technology.

Simply because something "just makes sense" doesn't make it public domain, able to be used anywhere, by anyone. You want to talk about stifling innovation. Imagine a world where anybody who develops anything has no way to protect all that work and it will immediately be stolen and produced by a competitor. What incentive is there to invent anymore?


Ding Ding Ding Ding!

Nick, your examples are not making any sense. I sorry.

Pinch to zoom is NOT a normal way of zooming. The way WE ALL zoomed was pressing the little + and - symbols. Apple pantented pinch to zoom when they developed it for their touch screens. Same with swipe to unlock. It seems like its the best way to unlock a smart phone since it is so simple and easy. That's why they pantented it!!!!!!! That's the whole reason to pantent something.

This is a win for consumers. Samsung has money. They have a R&D department. I'm sure they can develop very good technology that can compete against the iPhone. And not mirror it.

If you can't look at what Samsung put out after the IPhone and admit they willfully copied it, then you must be a Samsung fan boy!!
smile.gif


That's cool.

We all like what we like.


Wow. Couldnt have said it better myself.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Nick R said:
Anyone who's read my posts in the past knows how I feel about this. And all it's done is make me lose faith in our court system. Honestly, what do you think would be the situation today if a century ago a single company had patented "A motorized, self propelled coach with 4 wheels". This really is the same kind of things. The jury is also clearly ignoring abundant prior art. This whole thing makes me sick. Well I will never be buying an iphone. I'll keep my Galaxy S2 forever if that's what I have to do.



Cause Samsung is a great company?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/business/worldbusiness/06cnd-samsung.html

http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News/Story/A1Story20110610-283339.html

http://news.techeye.net/business/south-korea-makes-example-of-samsung-corruption


No billion dollar company is clean. Not even the Vatican!!!

Samsung went out of their way to make their phone look and act like the iPhone. That's a fact. That's why the jury ruled the way they did.

Your example of a company owning the rights of the car is not the same. Four wheels is NEEDED. A windshield is NEEDED. A motor is NEEDED.

Apple is not looking for compensation from Samsung because they used a touch screen. Because they used a CPU. Because they have a power button.

They sued Samsung because Samsung built their phone to look just like and act like the iPhone. Because Samsung incorporated pinch to zoom. Rubber banding. Those thing are not NEEDED to build a smart phone. They are features that apple spent time on polishing and incorporating into their product to set themselves apart from the competition. Only the have Samsung reverse engineer it and build a phone just like it.

Taking ideas and concepts is one thing. Making your phone look and work like just like your competion serves no use to the public.

This ruling is going to be good for consumers. It's going to push new and better innovation that sets every company apart from each other.



That's like saying that a car having a CD player/USB integration can be patented because it's "Not NEEEDED" The first company to put them in didn't try to patent them, and sue all other manufacturers that have since put it in. It's the same thing.

This ruling is NOT going to be good for the consumer. These patents are for things that just make sense on a smartphone. According to apple, swiping your finger on a screen to unlock it, no matter how it works, is stealing from them. Same thing for pinch to zoom. [censored], I had a samsung dumb phone with a touchscreen a few years before the iphone, that had pinch to zoom. So you are telling me that pinch to zoom should be allowed to be patented? Come on now.

All this is going to do is mean that Samsungs products in the US are going to be banned from sale. That is good for the consumer how? Less choice. Windows phone, blackberry, or iphone. Sounds like a plan to me.


I was going to type out a retort, but a fellow user already beat me to it. Could not of said it better myself.





Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Originally Posted By: Nick R

That's like saying that a car having a CD player/USB integration can be patented because it's "Not NEEEDED" The first company to put them in didn't try to patent them, and sue all other manufacturers that have since put it in. It's the same thing.

This ruling is NOT going to be good for the consumer. These patents are for things that just make sense on a smartphone.


Putting a CD player and USB port in a car IS patented. Both the CD player and USB host adapter are patented by Sony/Philips and IBM, respectively. To put them in a car, the device manufacturer (supplier providing the part) must license the technology.

Simply because something "just makes sense" doesn't make it public domain, able to be used anywhere, by anyone. You want to talk about stifling innovation. Imagine a world where anybody who develops anything has no way to protect all that work and it will immediately be stolen and produced by a competitor. What incentive is there to invent anymore?


Ding Ding Ding Ding!

Nick, your examples are not making any sense. I sorry.

Pinch to zoom is NOT a normal way of zooming. The way WE ALL zoomed was pressing the little + and - symbols. Apple pantented pinch to zoom when they developed it for their touch screens. Same with swipe to unlock. It seems like its the best way to unlock a smart phone since it is so simple and easy. That's why they pantented it!!!!!!! That's the whole reason to pantent something.

This is a win for consumers. Samsung has money. They have a R&D department. I'm sure they can develop very good technology that can compete against the iPhone. And not mirror it.

If you can't look at what Samsung put out after the IPhone and admit they willfully copied it, then you must be a Samsung fan boy!!
smile.gif


That's cool.

We all like what we like.


Wow. Couldnt have said it better myself.
Click to expand...


I need to apologize for the odd spacing, internet explorer on my work computer is messing up
Please, none of apples "patents" were invented by apple. I don't have time at the moment to go and find the examples, but pinch to zoom and that "bounce back" animation should never have been allowed to be patented. There is prior art. The problem with pinch to zoom? Because apples patent is as it applies to CAPACITIVE touch screens. Come on now. Apple is not any better than a lot of the patent troll companies out there. I personally believe that no matter what kind of screen
it is, allowing someone to patent pinch to zoom
and slide to unlock is stupid. Doesn't matter what
company it is. Those are natural motions, and
apple claims they invented it. Let's face it, apple doesn't
care about the patents either. They aren't doing it because
they feel they were stolen from. They are afraid of samsung
because they want to sell more phones and samsung is beating
them. So instead of making a better product, they will
litigate the competition out of business until they have a monopoly on smartphones.
 
Last edited:
Samsung could have innovated but instead they chose to copy. It's a lot cheaper. The gamble still may payoff for them.

What's the old saying? 'god gave you eyes plagiarize'.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R


I need to apologize for the odd spacing, internet explorer on my work computer is messing up
Please, none of apples "patents" were invented by apple. I don't have time at the moment to go and find the examples, but pinch to zoom and that "bounce back" animation should never have been allowed to be patented. There is prior art. The problem with pinch to zoom? Because apples patent is as it applies to CAPACITIVE touch screens. Come on now. Apple is not any better than a lot of the patent troll companies out there. I personally believe that no matter what kind of screen
it is, allowing someone to patent pinch to zoom
and slide to unlock is stupid. Doesn't matter what
company it is. Those are natural motions, and
apple claims they invented it. Let's face it, apple doesn't
care about the patents either. They aren't doing it because
they feel they were stolen from. They are afraid of samsung
because they want to sell more phones and samsung is beating
them. So instead of making a better product, they will
litigate the competition out of business until they have a monopoly on smartphones.


You make it sound as if Apple is the first company to buy/license technology that they didnt internally patent to use in something that is in widespread use. Do you really think that any major corporation patents all their own stuff? If the patent was granted, it was granted - to Apple or to whomever.

And I dont really see where the better product is. Kind of like when I was looking to replace my iphone - no suggestion you could make was actually superior to my iphone.

I wanted a tablet but hadnt bought one. My wife gave me one for my birthday. What really got me started on it was seeing the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Chicago this winter.

But analyzing them, Im not sure that it is/was a better product OR cheaper! In fact, I was disappointed by how the screen looked on the samsung, while my iPad 3 is awesome.

Amazon has tab 10.1 untis for sale for $397.

I can buy an iPad 2 for $399 from Apple. They both are 16GB.

Per Wiki, the iPad 2 has a screen resolution of 1024x768 and 132ppi. The Samsung is 800x1280 or 149. Not a huge difference to make the Samsung a compelling value. The iPad 3 is 2048x1536 and 264. And its $499 for 16 GB. Ive always said that a screen is the one place to spend money, and given how much IBM charged me for a high res screen on my thinkpad, $100 is cheap.

So Im not seeing this compelling value proposition, and no name is just that, no name. Its not Samsung, its not Apple, and to me, its not well-finished to my liking. So Im not seeing a real argument when everything is truly normalized.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R
I need to apologize for the odd spacing, internet explorer on my work computer is messing up
Please, none of apples "patents" were invented by apple. I don't have time at the moment to go and find the examples, but pinch to zoom and that "bounce back" animation should never have been allowed to be patented. There is prior art. The problem with pinch to zoom? Because apples patent is as it applies to CAPACITIVE touch screens. Come on now. Apple is not any better than a lot of the patent troll companies out there. I personally believe that no matter what kind of screen
it is, allowing someone to patent pinch to zoom
and slide to unlock is stupid. Doesn't matter what
company it is. Those are natural motions, and
apple claims they invented it. Let's face it, apple doesn't
care about the patents either. They aren't doing it because
they feel they were stolen from. They are afraid of samsung
because they want to sell more phones and samsung is beating
them. So instead of making a better product, they will
litigate the competition out of business until they have a monopoly on smartphones.


Im sorry Nick, im not trying to pick a fight, but I think your hate for Apple is just leading you to want to dismiss their claims.

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns

Mr. Kearns patented the intermittent windshield wipers. He did not invent the wipers. He innovated them.


They used to be either on or off. There was no in between or "speed selection".

Kearns thought up of a way to do it and he patented it. The big bad corporations copied it. So what? intermittent wipers are "natural". Everyone wants them. It's just the logical way to make wipers!!!! Right?!?!?!?!?

NO! Kearns sued the heck out of the motor industry and one 40+ million dollars in settlements.

When it's some regular guy going up against the corporations, everyone calls him a hero.

But if it's a corporation you do not like that is suing for patents, they must be money hungry, afraid of their competition, scum bags! And they should be boycotted for the rest of time.

I don't know. Seems silly to me.
 
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Samsung could have innovated but instead they chose to copy. It's a lot cheaper. The gamble still may payoff for them.

What's the old saying? 'god gave you eyes plagiarize'.


Hmmm. don't know about cheaper but it sure is easier to "catch up".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GON
Apple suggests using rice to dry wet smartphones is counterproductive
2
Replies
24
Views
940
oldgrayman
C
$20 smartwatch vs Apple SE
2 3
Replies
45
Views
2K
dnewton3
C
Going to get to play with a apple phone
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
miden851
BISCUT
New Phone Advice
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
PimTac
AZjeff
Use a mouse with a smart phone, who knew? (PSA)
Replies
12
Views
1K
Pew
Back
Top