Apple Wins $1 Billion as Jury Finds Samsung Violated Patents
- Thread starter oracle
- Start date
Samsung will prob appeal and then drag the case in court etc for years again
i think in terms of innovation apple is right up there but samsung product is equally good too.
But i think samsung already scored a good deal in australia with an alliance with foxtel pushing their app into their smart tvs - meaning no more electrician or installers to install the cabling as it can be run through internet TV.
i think in terms of innovation apple is right up there but samsung product is equally good too.
But i think samsung already scored a good deal in australia with an alliance with foxtel pushing their app into their smart tvs - meaning no more electrician or installers to install the cabling as it can be run through internet TV.
Samsung's handsets, particularly the Galaxy 2 and Note, do bear a resemblance to the iPhone. Whilst there has been some design copying going on, the fact is that a rectangle with rounded corners is the obvious shape to make a tablet. For example, the Nokia N800 was released several months before the first iPhone, and conforms to that form factor.
That said, the list of infringed patents doesn't contain that many earth-shaking innovations:
There used to be a gentleman's agreement amongst the handset manufacturers that they wouldn't pursue one another over patents, because it was virtually impossible to develop something without stepping on someone else's IP. Apple haven't adhered to this, and appear to be using the courts as a way of removing competition.
That said, the list of infringed patents doesn't contain that many earth-shaking innovations:
- Combined search across a device and the Internet.
- Swiping or tracing a shape on the touch screen to unlock.
- A portable device for managing a photo album.
- Scraping phone numbers or email addresses from a web page.
- Arranging meetings or appointments on a mobile device.
There used to be a gentleman's agreement amongst the handset manufacturers that they wouldn't pursue one another over patents, because it was virtually impossible to develop something without stepping on someone else's IP. Apple haven't adhered to this, and appear to be using the courts as a way of removing competition.
everything is pretty much copied these days,
the goods companies dont get caught, or the good companies prevent others from copying
the goods companies dont get caught, or the good companies prevent others from copying
Apple is the new Microsoft, and IBM before that, using their patents and influence to crush better competition and lock customers into their products.
If history is any guide, everyone will hate them before long.
If history is any guide, everyone will hate them before long.
Despite Apple's claims that everyone was slavishly copying them, here is the LG Prada, which was announced in late 2006, and went on sale several months before the original iPhone.
Apple are fantastic at design, and also the end-to-end user experience. But I'm not convinced that they're the source of all innovation that their PR would claim.
Also bear in mind that Steve Jobs was very good at changing direction when it suited him. The iPhone was originally intended to only run HTML 5 based web apps, but a number of end users circumvented the restrictions preventing third party apps, and an ecosystem grew up around this. Apple changed tack, and ended up supporting developers by releasing a development environment and the app store.
(Jobs nearly shut down the animation department at Pixar too, as he wanted to sell graphics hardware and software...
)
Apple are fantastic at design, and also the end-to-end user experience. But I'm not convinced that they're the source of all innovation that their PR would claim.
Also bear in mind that Steve Jobs was very good at changing direction when it suited him. The iPhone was originally intended to only run HTML 5 based web apps, but a number of end users circumvented the restrictions preventing third party apps, and an ecosystem grew up around this. Apple changed tack, and ended up supporting developers by releasing a development environment and the app store.
(Jobs nearly shut down the animation department at Pixar too, as he wanted to sell graphics hardware and software...
)
It would have been better if the poll asked "regardless if Samsung copied Apple, do you think its good that they did?". I would vote yes.
One of only 120 Pixar computers released available on ebay:
tell him hes dreaming
Samsung have now responded:
apples-1b-win-tipped-to-push-up-prices
Jobs nearly shut down the animation department at Pixar too, as he wanted to sell graphics hardware and software...
One of only 120 Pixar computers released available on ebay:
tell him hes dreaming
Samsung have now responded:
apples-1b-win-tipped-to-push-up-prices
Incidentally, if anyone is interested in Steve Jobs's life, then these articles from The Register are a good warts and all overview.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/06/steve_jobs_bio_1/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/10/steve_jobs_bio_2/
Toy Story made Jobs a billionaire, and had he shut Pixar's animation department down in favour of trying to flog hardware, it might have been a very different story.
Like I said, he was very good at changing direction when he saw an opportunity. There's a lesson there for us all.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/06/steve_jobs_bio_1/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/10/steve_jobs_bio_2/
Toy Story made Jobs a billionaire, and had he shut Pixar's animation department down in favour of trying to flog hardware, it might have been a very different story.
Like I said, he was very good at changing direction when he saw an opportunity. There's a lesson there for us all.
I've got an iPad myself, and it's a nifty little item.
I've seen the Samsung products too, and some frinds have it. Personally, I think that Samsung did copy the iPad.
I still think that the iPad should have legitimate competitors in the long term, but in the short term, due to Apple's innovation, they do deserve to profit from it.
I've seen the Samsung products too, and some frinds have it. Personally, I think that Samsung did copy the iPad.
I still think that the iPad should have legitimate competitors in the long term, but in the short term, due to Apple's innovation, they do deserve to profit from it.
i would say that's a furphy.
the US Patent Office require proof, demonstration, schematics etc to prove you patent either works or you came up with plans yourself.
true, they are not in the buinsess of double checking if anyone else has somethign similar, they can only check if someone else has a similar patent.
I might have been unfair to the USPTO. A few years back, it had a reputation for granting patents on whatever was submitted, but its acceptance rates have fallen since 2007 or 2008 to being below the EPO's. Furthermore there's a tendency for companies to seek extremely board patents, rather than something that covers a specific implementation.
The problem has historically been that the examiners wouldn't do a sufficiently thorough search of prior art, and that there was an attitude that any unsustainable patents would be struck down in court. Unfortunately this has proven difficult in practice.
For example, one of the patents that Apple hit Samsung with was for unified search, combining the results of several databases or services (e.g. the file system on a device and a search engine like Google) into a single set of results. This is essentially federated search, which has been around since the Sixties, and the Apple patent doesn't (according to the commentary) add anything unique onto this.
The distaste that engineering professionals have with the system is probably to do with the practice of patent trolling. A company will acquire, or in some cases develop, a piece of IP, and then engage in court actions to extract royalty payments from other companies who, in many cases, have developed the same technology independently.
There's more coverage of the Apple and Samsung case here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/29/love_hate_relationship_with_apple/
The problem has historically been that the examiners wouldn't do a sufficiently thorough search of prior art, and that there was an attitude that any unsustainable patents would be struck down in court. Unfortunately this has proven difficult in practice.
For example, one of the patents that Apple hit Samsung with was for unified search, combining the results of several databases or services (e.g. the file system on a device and a search engine like Google) into a single set of results. This is essentially federated search, which has been around since the Sixties, and the Apple patent doesn't (according to the commentary) add anything unique onto this.
The distaste that engineering professionals have with the system is probably to do with the practice of patent trolling. A company will acquire, or in some cases develop, a piece of IP, and then engage in court actions to extract royalty payments from other companies who, in many cases, have developed the same technology independently.
There's more coverage of the Apple and Samsung case here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/29/love_hate_relationship_with_apple/
Thats gold!