Samsung vs Apple case

That exchange encapsulates the broader arguments for and against protecting intellectual property. But the Apple-Samsung case doesn't have to hold back progress. If the Android camp - which includes Google, Taiwan's HTC and other handset makers - take the verdict as a challenge to out-innovate Apple, consumers could find themselves with exciting new options. And if rivals can steal Apple's thunder rather than echoing it, they'd be able to note smugly that the Cupertino company's seemingly comprehensive patent victory in 2012 was Pyrrhic.Reuters

[QUOTE="musicalmac"]>You have to remove your personal stake in this matter to think clearly about it.mystic_knight

Imagine how Google (an ad revenue driven company with little to no hardware manufacturing experience) musicalmac

[QUOTE="musicalmac"]

Imagine how Google (an ad revenue driven company with little to no hardware manufacturing experience) Gambler_3

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="musicalmac"]

Imagine how Google (an ad revenue driven company with little to no hardware manufacturing experience) Kid-Atari

The patent system is the patent system, and the phrase, "The patent system is flawed," is a convenient way for people who don't like Apple's victory in this case to justify their feelings. Thankfully, someone who does know and understand the patent system was on the jury (because both Apple's and Samsung's lawyers approved him), and as a result, the correct, objective conclusion was reached in the trial. The legitimacy of your personal feelings is not objective.

Apple's iPhone is the first of its kind, and much like the iPad, it sparked a technological revolution. It's baffling to me how many people defend the fragmented ad portal smartphone OS with poorer software and hardware support, when you could have the real McCoy for roughly the same price on contract. The truth of the matter is that Samsung directly copied many of the behaviors of iOS with Android, features Apple was careful to patent because they was part of Apple's trade dress, what made iOS feel unique and polished.

I'm encouraging you to think objectively. Apple had patents, Samsung willfully violated them, the court found them guilty. As a result, Samsung may end up paying triple the original court damages and may see many of their devices removed from store shelves. This is reality.

You have to remove your personal stake in this matter to think clearly about it. It doesn't matter how much or how little I like Apple, this is just reality, and I'm afraid your views on the matter are distorted, and it boils down to your personal troubles with a technology company.

The only thing you'll lose from Android devices are the things that Apple implemented and patented, so that shouldn't bother anyone who truly dislikes iOS or Apple. Otherwise you would have just purchased an iPhone in the first place. It still truly confuses me when people react with such distain towards Apple. I can't help but think they haven't done their homework on the casework, because it's really, really obvious when you've taken the time to look at the trial and the materials the trial brought to light.musicalmac

So the only reason people bring up the flaws of the US patent system is to defend Android? The people and various companies have heralded for years that the US system is broken (as it appears a lot of this sh!t doesn't fly with other countries.) Look at other sectors of technology. TV manufacturers aren't at each others throats for being look-alikes. I don't remember anyone being sued in the transistion to flat-panel displays. Know what they did? They built of each others' designs to try and give the customer the best value at every price point. I don't see anyone going at each other over computer case designs either. Also you should know that the legitimacy behind the jury's decision is highly questionable, and is being reviewed and looked into because of how flawed it was.

Yes, the iPhone was the first of it's kind. iPad, however, was not a first of it's kind. The tablet computer existed long before the iPad, and being an oversized iPod isn't innovation. How can people defend companies that try to argue rounded corners on rectangles and square icons instead of supporting the company that promotes openness and choice? How can people defend the company that doesn't want you to jailbreak your phone over those who nearly promote it? How dare we choose freedom over being locked down! This is not the total truth and the battle is far from over. You're only spouting that because of the decision in the US Court, and it happens to be in your personal favor no matter the details. The Seoul Court ruled both sides violated each other's patents and both were fined (Apple a bit more than Samsung as it violated more patents.) While their decision matters little and was not able to be accessed by the jurors of the US case (they were forbidden to access any news or information,) I do agree with it more because they had enough sense to "deny Apples claim that Samsung had illegally copied its design, ruling that big rectangular screens in cases with rounded corners had existed in products before the iPhone and iPad."

Apple had patents (in the USA.) Samsung willfully violated them (so you say.) The (US) courts found them guilty. As a result, Samsung (might) have to pay (far more than they rightfully should) because the American consumer is apparently too stupid to recognize basic elements such as logos. You and many other Apple fanboys will claim Samsung needs to innovate and not copy. So many hold onto the word innovate like it's the only word that matters, and don't even know how to use it properly. When does creation and improvement come into play? If you like Apple so much, why didn't you switch to the Galaxy S phones? I mean, they're obviously copies right? If they are, then Samsung improved on the design far more than Apple has ever done. That's the only way to explain how they took the marketshare away from Apple, and why Apple got so butthurt over it. "Wahhh it's our invention! You're not allowed to make it better or else we'll legally attack you!"

You tell others to remove their personal stake, but you haven't budged an inch on yours. You're not thinking fairly. You're putting down Samsung and Android whenever and wherever you can. It's blatantly obvious from almost every post of yours. Before you say it, no I do not have an allegiance to Android. I also do not have an allegiance to Samsung. I think the obsession and hype over smartphones is absolutely ridiculous, and that they evolved beyond their purpose. Mobile phones went from being a conveience to a requirement of life. The entire battle, no matter who Apple went against, would only result in a loss for the US consumer. Since I have a feeling you're gonna ask, I chose my Captivate because of the beautiful AMOLED screen, Gorilla Glass, great DSP, great multimedia software, battery life, and the UI. Oh, and I can add additional storage. Did I chose it because it was Android? Hell no, I chose it because it was the best value for the money at the time.

So we'll go back to having buttons and hopefully a better interface? That is an incredibly weak and pathetic argument on why people chose Android over iOS. I will argue you haven't done your research. You went to Apple sites and looked at pro-Apple material and never bothered to once look fairly at Samsung's arguments and evidence. Can I prove you did? I can't. Can you prove you didn't? No you can't. Since none of us can prove who did what, what exactly was the point of bringing it up?

In the wake of Apples billion-plus dollar win in their patent suit against Samsung last week, much of the focus appears to be on the flaws in the patent system. Many argue that the suit involved patents that are obvious, and that Apple is a bully in enforcing them. These arguments show blatant disregard for the job of Patent Examiners in reviewing patent applications and prior art, and the jury in hearing and deciding the case, which listened to both sides of the arguments and decided that the patents are valid.

The obviousness argument highlights a misconception held by many about the patent system. Patent law requires that obviousness of a patent claim be considered at the time the invention was made. This means that the Patent Examiner considering a patent application must determine whether the invention would have been obvious as of the filing date (or possibly even earlier) of the patent application. It is irrelevant whether the invention is obvious when the patent is being examined, and is even more irrelevant whether the invention seems obvious many years after the invention has been brought to market. After-the-fact obviousness arguments being presented by many of the Internet commentators are therefore improper under the current patent law system.

... So what can startups take away from this decision involving two tech giants? For one, patents in the U.S. are incredibly valuable, and will continue to be valuable for the foreseeable future. Two, if you believe your technology holds any value, it is probably valuable enough to protect it through intellectual property rights. This is especially true where a startup is operating in a crowded space and producing innovations that may only be improvements over a competitors existing products or designs. As Apple demonstrated, these improvements even if subtle may be adopted and indeed even become commonplace in the startups market. As Benedict Evans so eloquently put on Twitter, [t]he measure of Apples achievement: what was unimaginable in 2006 now seems so obvious that people claim Apple should have no patents.

Finally, if you are a startup worrying about competitors suing you out of existence, consider Robert Scobles take on the Samsung decision, I think this is actually a sizable win for Samsung. Why? It only cost $1 billion to become the #2 most profitable mobile company.I bet that RIM wishes it had copied the iPhone a lot sooner than it did. So does Nokia, and HTC and a raft of other manufacturers I bet. Samsung is a much healthier company than any of those BECAUSE it copied the iPhone. So while as a patent attorney I never advocate knowingly infringing the patent rights of others, and patent licensing and purchase deals can avoid many of the troubles faced by Samsung (if Samsung had simply taken Apples license offer, their total cost would have been half the jury verdict), Samsung may still be in a better position having copied Apple and been found to infringe than if it had never copied at all.TechCrunch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cq5zHP1Ck0

You all should watch this video (arby n the chief). It illustrates how erroneous it is to claim someone was first in something, therefore no once can do it in their own way... It is bs that Apple has people convinced that they completely on their own made the idea for phones that are completely touch screen. It was inevitable, it was going to happen, obviously Apple has the most money, so they probably could get their first. If Samsung really just merely copied Apple, why wouldnt I just get the Apple, because copies usually are not going to be nearly as good. Samsung makes Iphones, so obviously there are going to be similiarities. But in reality, the Samsung phone is a really different one. I felt the iphone, what a brick... FFS if this was about patent infringing, why wait until the Samsung Galaxy S3?

I admit, I do not understand the whole issue, but as a consumer I really do not trust Apple's intentions. Well I have heard about how they are copying eachother, it sounds like one thing has lead to another. Maybe technically they did, but lets be honest, havent we seen a lot of these cases that are really dumb? Like for example, why do they wait until the product is out to make all this commotion, then sue? Everyone knew it was coming out, but they waited until the company had done a lot to say anything. They should of tried preventing the device from coming out, hmmmm? If it was really infringing, right? For one thing using two fingers on a touch screen device is kind of a given. I didnt even know the feature was there, but I automatically assumed that I use two fingers to zoom.

edit: Also both have been copying eachother, so Apple is not innocent, this is mostly America politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cq5zHP1Ck0

You all should watch this video (arby n the chief). It illustrates how erroneous it is to claim someone was first in something, therefore no once can do it in their own way... It is bs that Apple has people convinced that they completely on their own made the idea for phones that are completely touch screen. It was inevitable, it was going to happen, obviously Apple has the most money, so they probably could get their first. If Samsung really just merely copied Apple, why wouldnt I just get the Apple, because copies usually are not going to be nearly as good. Samsung makes Iphones, so obviously there are going to be similiarities. But in reality, the Samsung phone is a really different one. I felt the iphone, what a brick... FFS if this was about patent infringing, why wait until the Samsung Galaxy S3?

I admit, I do not understand the whole issue, but as a consumer I really do not trust Apple's intentions. Well I have heard about how they are copying eachother, it sounds like one thing has lead to another. Maybe technically they did, but lets be honest, havent we seen a lot of these cases that are really dumb? Like for example, why do they wait until the product is out to make all this commotion, then sue? Everyone knew it was coming out, but they waited until the company had done a lot to say anything. They should of tried preventing the device from coming out, hmmmm? If it was really infringing, right? For one thing using two fingers on a touch screen device is kind of a given. I didnt even know the feature was there, but I automatically assumed that I use two fingers to zoom.

edit: Also both have been copying eachother, so Apple is not innocent, this is mostly America politics.

mahlasor

Maybe its true that samsung did succeed as well as they did by making similar features to the iphone.

I for one don't like their handsets, just as much as i don't like Apples, i may even go as far as preferring and Apple device over a Samsung. Trust me i am not a big fan of Samsung at all but Apples use of patents is a "bullying" type as you like to call it. I even gave you an example of a patent they applied for and won before.

Reality is patents are going through which should not have been processed. Apple took this to their advantage and have used them against varying companies.

Patents do not reflect genuine intellectual property anymore.

Edited for stupid gamespot paragraphing.

And the statement that touchscreen only phones were an "obvious" thing is COMPLETELY incorrect. If it was so obvious, why was it that Apple suffered condemning backlash from the entire tech industry on the day of the iPhone reveal? How many companies, industry "experts," and even a lot of these Fandroids refer to the iPhone reveal as "GIMMICK," "NO KEYBOARD OR BUTTONS = PHAIL," and all the doom and gloom predictions that claimed the iPhone was dead on arrival?Kid-Atari

So it isn't an obvious thing because....Apple didn't do it first? It's an obvious thing because touch input existed before the iPhone was conceptualized. iPhone suffered backlash for not relying on a pen/single-touch like other smartphones did. How many praised the iPhone? Why are you looking at purely the negatives? Wanna know what else is obvious? Grid layouts, as we've had for many, many years before the modern smartphone. Wanna know another obvious thing? A taskbar and notification center. Putting it onto a mobile device and moving their location is not new, modern, or innovative. The basis for the claim of being familiar in many aspects is not an unfound one.

Touch screen devices prior to the iPhone were using resistive screen technologyKid-Atari

I found this article ...

http://nicklazilla.tumblr.com/post/29202801252/samsung-is-apples-biggest-fan

Probs not 100% accurate but funny as ****

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cq5zHP1Ck0

Kid-Atari

You should of watched, at least starting at 10:00 or something, they say that just because someone is first in an idea, doesnt mean no one else can... I guess the point would be made that those companies can pay a licensing fee to do it, but still imagine if all the other Halo machinima artist had to pay a fee to Rooster Teeth.. I guess examples of this in the gaming industry is the first Sony Duel shock controller vs the N64 controller. Yeah Nintendo was first to do it, or in appearance, but think how much better the Sony controller was? in the end being mere copy cats is weak, but if you can do something similiar, but do it way better, and not like be a clone... And Samsung makes iphones... So eat them apples.

edit:http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-patent-lawsuits-2012-8

This is how I feel about it. To me Apple claiming no one can do what they do unless they bow down to them is bs, it is basically a monopoly, where they get royalties by using this patent to get free money, so they get an unfair uncompetitive advantage.

So according to this articlehttp://www.droid-life.com/2012/08/30/samsung-if-apple-releases-an-lte-iphone-were-ready-to-sue/ Samsung is getting ready to sue Apple if the next IPhone is to come out with LTE. And seeing how they have a number of patents on the matter this can get ugly. Honestly I i do think im a tad biased towards Samsung but this is a bit much. Im interested to see what happens but when you start banning items in a country then the consumer is who loses. We deserve to have choice in the prodcuts we want. But this may be jumping the gun though maybe though wont do anything about it at all and they are just bluffing.

[QUOTE="musicalmac"][QUOTE="christiankhs-2"]

the only thing that i find weird in all this, is why is so hard for apple to win this "battle" when is so obvious all of samsung copies , so... patents are not really very helpful it seems

Gambler_3

Apple is also about to copy the screen size of android phones and tablets talk about originality.